Opposition by Kevin Robinson to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Little Wings Limited to remove trade mark number 1846646 (classes 39, 41) – LITTLE WINGS with aeroplane device - in...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 11
•18 February 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Kevin Robinson to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Little Wings Limited to remove trade mark number 1846646 (classes 39, 41) – LITTLE WINGS with aeroplane device - in... [2021] ATMO 11
[2021] ATMO 11
18 February 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kevin Robinson (the Opponent) sought the removal of trade mark number 1846646, LITTLE WINGS with an aeroplane device, registered by Little Wings Limited (the Applicant) in classes 39 and 41. The application for removal was made under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The matter was heard by Nicholas Barbey.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Opponent had demonstrated that the Applicant had no intention in good faith to use, or had not actually used, the trade mark during the relevant period, thereby justifying its removal from the register. The court was required to consider the evidence presented by the Opponent regarding the Applicant's use or intended use of the trade mark.
The court found that the Opponent's evidence did not establish the necessary grounds for removal under section 92 of the Act. Consequently, the court determined that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to remove the trade mark from the register. The court ordered that the trade mark remain registered.
In relation to costs, the court applied the general rule that costs follow the event and awarded costs against the Opponent, to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 8 of the *Trade Mark Regulations 1995* (Cth).
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Opponent had demonstrated that the Applicant had no intention in good faith to use, or had not actually used, the trade mark during the relevant period, thereby justifying its removal from the register. The court was required to consider the evidence presented by the Opponent regarding the Applicant's use or intended use of the trade mark.
The court found that the Opponent's evidence did not establish the necessary grounds for removal under section 92 of the Act. Consequently, the court determined that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to remove the trade mark from the register. The court ordered that the trade mark remain registered.
In relation to costs, the court applied the general rule that costs follow the event and awarded costs against the Opponent, to be calculated in accordance with Schedule 8 of the *Trade Mark Regulations 1995* (Cth).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Jianqing Ltd v Linhope International Limited [2022] ATMO 169
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Gowan Crop Protection Limited v Nufarm Australia Limited
[2023] ATMO 79
Jianqing Ltd v Linhope International Limited
[2022] ATMO 169
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Jewelscan Pty Ltd v Phenix Jewellery Pty Ltd
[2012] ATMO 85
Southern Wine Corporation Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Perera
[2006] WASCA 275
Southern Wine Corporation Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Perera
[2006] WASCA 275