Opposition by Linked Business Concepts Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 1694840 (35, 44) – 360 (Figurative) – in the name of Thomas International Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 185
•1 December 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Linked Business Concepts Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 1694840 (35, 44) – 360 (Figurative) – in the name of Thomas International Ltd [2020] ATMO 185
[2020] ATMO 185
1 December 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Linked Business Concepts Pty Ltd to the registration of the figurative trade mark application 1694840, which included classes 35 and 44, by Thomas International Ltd. The opposition was heard by Nicholas Smith, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 58, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established by the Opponent. The Opponent bore the onus of proving these grounds.
The Hearing Officer considered the evidence filed by both parties, noting the Opponent's claim of confidentiality over its evidence and adopting the approach of a previous delegate that such claims, if not specifically particularised, could hinder the determination of the opposition. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition. Specifically, regarding the section 62A ground, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant's decision to adopt the mark was made with the intention of taking advantage of the Opponent's reputation, particularly as the Opponent had little to no established reputation in Australia, and no evidence of reputation in the United Kingdom where the mark was coined.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that trade mark application no. 1694840 proceed to registration, subject to a stay if an appeal was filed. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 58, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established by the Opponent. The Opponent bore the onus of proving these grounds.
The Hearing Officer considered the evidence filed by both parties, noting the Opponent's claim of confidentiality over its evidence and adopting the approach of a previous delegate that such claims, if not specifically particularised, could hinder the determination of the opposition. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition. Specifically, regarding the section 62A ground, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant's decision to adopt the mark was made with the intention of taking advantage of the Opponent's reputation, particularly as the Opponent had little to no established reputation in Australia, and no evidence of reputation in the United Kingdom where the mark was coined.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that trade mark application no. 1694840 proceed to registration, subject to a stay if an appeal was filed. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
31
Statutory Material Cited
0
Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd
[2008] ATMO 17
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58