Opposition by KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LIMITED to the registration of trade mark application number 668958 in the name of MYONG GIL LEE and JIN HO LEE for the word trade mark
Case
•
[1999] ATMO 91
•31 August 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LIMITED to the registration of trade mark application number 668958 in the name of MYONG GIL LEE and JIN HO LEE for the word trade mark [1999] ATMO 91
[1999] ATMO 91
31 August 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Korean Air Lines Co., Limited to the registration of trade mark application number 668958, for the word mark "KOREAN AIR", filed by Myong Gil Lee and Jin Ho Lee. The opposition was heard by Ian Forno.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "KOREAN AIR" for services including air transport. The delegate was required to consider the likelihood of deception or confusion arising from the use of the applicant's mark in relation to the services for which it was sought to be registered, having regard to the similarities between the marks and the nature of the services.
In determining the issue of deceptive similarity, the delegate applied the principles established in cases such as *Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd* and *Parke Davis & Co Ltd v. Centrafarm Ltd*. The delegate considered the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the two marks. The delegate found that the applicant's mark "KOREAN AIR" was identical to the opponent's registered mark "KOREAN AIR". Given this identity and the fact that the services were also identical, the delegate concluded that there was a clear and substantial likelihood of deception or confusion.
The delegate upheld the opposition and refused the registration of the applicant's trade mark application.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "KOREAN AIR" for services including air transport. The delegate was required to consider the likelihood of deception or confusion arising from the use of the applicant's mark in relation to the services for which it was sought to be registered, having regard to the similarities between the marks and the nature of the services.
In determining the issue of deceptive similarity, the delegate applied the principles established in cases such as *Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd* and *Parke Davis & Co Ltd v. Centrafarm Ltd*. The delegate considered the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the two marks. The delegate found that the applicant's mark "KOREAN AIR" was identical to the opponent's registered mark "KOREAN AIR". Given this identity and the fact that the services were also identical, the delegate concluded that there was a clear and substantial likelihood of deception or confusion.
The delegate upheld the opposition and refused the registration of the applicant's trade mark application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Virbac (Australia) Pty Limited v Dermcare-Vet Pty Ltd [2001] ATMO 16
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese
[2000] FCA 1141
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Smith Hayden & Co Ltd's Application
[1963] HCA 1