Opposition by KJ Ince Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2310786 (classes 31, 35, 39, 44) – FLOWERS FOR EVERYONE (Composite) - in the name of Flowers For Everyone Sydney Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 55
•12 March 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by KJ Ince Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2310786 (classes 31, 35, 39, 44) – FLOWERS FOR EVERYONE (Composite) - in the name of Flowers For Everyone Sydney Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 55
[2025] ATMO 55
12 March 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition filed by KJ Ince Pty Ltd (the Opponent) against the registration of trade mark application number 2310786, for the composite mark "FLOWERS FOR EVERYONE", in the name of Flowers For Everyone Sydney Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The opposition was heard by a Hearing Officer acting as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The Opponent nominated several grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 43, 44, 58, 58A, and 60 of the relevant legislation. However, the Opponent did not pursue the ground under section 43. The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were to determine whether the Opponent had established any of the remaining grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities, with the relevant date for assessing the parties' rights being 27 October 2022, the filing date of the Applicant's trade mark application.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. The evidence filed by the Opponent, including social media posts, webpage archives, invoices, photographs, customer reviews, and trading figures, was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the opposed grounds. Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
The Opponent nominated several grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 43, 44, 58, 58A, and 60 of the relevant legislation. However, the Opponent did not pursue the ground under section 43. The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were to determine whether the Opponent had established any of the remaining grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities, with the relevant date for assessing the parties' rights being 27 October 2022, the filing date of the Applicant's trade mark application.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. The evidence filed by the Opponent, including social media posts, webpage archives, invoices, photographs, customer reviews, and trading figures, was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the opposed grounds. Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58