Opposition by Millie & More Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 1984352 (10) – MOXIE BY WE-VIBE – in the name of WOW Tech Canada Ltd
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 29
•29 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Millie & More Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 1984352 (10) – MOXIE BY WE-VIBE – in the name of WOW Tech Canada Ltd [2021] ATMO 29
[2021] ATMO 29
29 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Millie & More Pty Ltd (the Opponent) opposed the registration of the trade mark application 1984352, MOXIE BY WE-VIBE, by WOW Tech Canada Ltd (the Applicant) before the Australian Trade Marks Office. The Opponent contended that the registration of the mark should be refused on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion due to the reputation of its own registered trade mark.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the Applicant's trade mark application should be refused under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) by reason of likely confusion with the Opponent's existing trade mark, considering the reputation of the Opponent's mark under section 60 of the Act.
The hearing officer found that the Opponent had established a ground of opposition. This conclusion was based on the assessment that the reputation of the Opponent's trade mark was such that the use of the Applicant's mark would be likely to cause confusion among consumers. Consequently, the hearing officer awarded costs in favour of the Opponent against the Applicant, in accordance with section 221 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* and the scale of costs prescribed in Schedule 8 of the *Trade Mark Regulations 1995*.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the Applicant's trade mark application should be refused under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) by reason of likely confusion with the Opponent's existing trade mark, considering the reputation of the Opponent's mark under section 60 of the Act.
The hearing officer found that the Opponent had established a ground of opposition. This conclusion was based on the assessment that the reputation of the Opponent's trade mark was such that the use of the Applicant's mark would be likely to cause confusion among consumers. Consequently, the hearing officer awarded costs in favour of the Opponent against the Applicant, in accordance with section 221 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* and the scale of costs prescribed in Schedule 8 of the *Trade Mark Regulations 1995*.
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
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd
[2020] FCAFC 186