Opposition by Local Kitchen Co Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application numbers 2367277 (classes 29 and 30) –
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 149
•28 July 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Local Kitchen Co Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application numbers 2367277 (classes 29 and 30) – [2025] ATMO 149
[2025] ATMO 149
28 July 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns an opposition by Local Kitchen Co Pty Ltd to the registration of two trade mark applications, numbers 2367277, in classes 29 and 30. The decision was made by Hearing Officer Bianca Irgang.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the registration of the applicant's trade marks should be opposed under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This ground requires the opponent to demonstrate that another trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia before the priority date of the application, and that the use of the applicant's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion due to that reputation. The opponent also relied on the similarity of the goods and services covered by the respective applications.
The Hearing Officer applied the principles for assessing the likelihood of confusion as outlined in *Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths*, which require consideration of whether the ordinary person would be left in doubt as to the source of the goods or services. This assessment involves examining all surrounding circumstances, including the manner in which the marks will be used and the character of the probable acquirers. The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any grounds for opposition under section 60.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark applications may proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal is filed. The opponent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the registration of the applicant's trade marks should be opposed under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This ground requires the opponent to demonstrate that another trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia before the priority date of the application, and that the use of the applicant's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion due to that reputation. The opponent also relied on the similarity of the goods and services covered by the respective applications.
The Hearing Officer applied the principles for assessing the likelihood of confusion as outlined in *Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths*, which require consideration of whether the ordinary person would be left in doubt as to the source of the goods or services. This assessment involves examining all surrounding circumstances, including the manner in which the marks will be used and the character of the probable acquirers. The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any grounds for opposition under section 60.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark applications may proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal is filed. The opponent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v The Bali Company Inc
[1973] HCA 43