Opposition by Judith Belushi Pisano to registration of trade mark application number 2059263 (Class 35) – BOOZE BROTHERS with device - in the name of Saturno's Admin Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 42
•24 March 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Judith Belushi Pisano to registration of trade mark application number 2059263 (Class 35) – BOOZE BROTHERS with device - in the name of Saturno's Admin Pty Ltd. [2022] ATMO 42
[2022] ATMO 42
24 March 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Judith Belushi Pisano to the registration of the trade mark application number 2059263, for the mark BOOZE BROTHERS with device in Class 35, filed by Saturno's Admin Pty Ltd. The opposition was heard by Blake Knowles, a Hearing Officer.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark should be registered, given the grounds of opposition raised by the opponent. These grounds included allegations of deceptive similarity under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), as well as other grounds under sections 42(b), 58, 60, and 62A.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition. Specifically, in the absence of submissions from the opponent, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to either the opponent's Word Mark or Composite Mark, thereby failing to establish the ground under section 44. Consequently, the Hearing Officer directed that the trade mark application could proceed to registration.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark should be registered, given the grounds of opposition raised by the opponent. These grounds included allegations of deceptive similarity under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), as well as other grounds under sections 42(b), 58, 60, and 62A.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition. Specifically, in the absence of submissions from the opponent, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to either the opponent's Word Mark or Composite Mark, thereby failing to establish the ground under section 44. Consequently, the Hearing Officer directed that the trade mark application could proceed to registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020