Opposition by Martin Richards to registration of trade mark application number 2057974 (Classes 16, 30, 43) – BLK STR figurative in the name of Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 2
•4 January 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Martin Richards to registration of trade mark application number 2057974 (Classes 16, 30, 43) – BLK STR figurative in the name of Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd. [2022] ATMO 2
[2022] ATMO 2
4 January 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns an opposition by Martin Richards to the registration of the trade mark application number 2057974, designated as BLK STR figurative, in Classes 16, 30, and 43, by Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd. The opposition was heard by Blake Knowles, Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Delegate were whether the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 44, 58, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. The Opponent bore the burden of proving these grounds on the balance of probabilities, with the rights of the parties assessed as at the relevant date.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. Specifically, the Opponent conceded that section 42(b) could only succeed if section 60 was also established, and as section 60 was not made out, section 42(b) was not considered further. The Delegate determined that the evidence did not support the establishment of the remaining grounds. Consequently, the Delegate ordered that the trade mark proceed to registration, subject to the usual appeal period. Both parties sought costs, but the Delegate declined to award costs given that the matter was heard concurrently with other oppositions involving similar evidence and that both parties had achieved a measure of success across those proceedings.
The legal issues before the Delegate were whether the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 44, 58, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) were established. The Opponent bore the burden of proving these grounds on the balance of probabilities, with the rights of the parties assessed as at the relevant date.
The Delegate found that the Opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. Specifically, the Opponent conceded that section 42(b) could only succeed if section 60 was also established, and as section 60 was not made out, section 42(b) was not considered further. The Delegate determined that the evidence did not support the establishment of the remaining grounds. Consequently, the Delegate ordered that the trade mark proceed to registration, subject to the usual appeal period. Both parties sought costs, but the Delegate declined to award costs given that the matter was heard concurrently with other oppositions involving similar evidence and that both parties had achieved a measure of success across those proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020