Opposition by Monster Energy Company to registration of two trade mark applications – 1527801 (classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 30, 41) MONSTER MAN and 1527807 (classes 16, 25, 28, 41) MONSTER FRIENDZ – both in the name of...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 20
•12 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Monster Energy Company to registration of two trade mark applications – 1527801 (classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 30, 41) MONSTER MAN and 1527807 (classes 16, 25, 28, 41) MONSTER FRIENDZ – both in the name of... [2021] ATMO 20
[2021] ATMO 20
12 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Monster Energy Company opposed two trade mark applications, 1527801 for "MONSTER MAN" and 1527807 for "MONSTER FRIENDZ", filed by an overseas applicant without an Australian address for service. The opposition was brought under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The delegate considered a ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act.
The primary legal issue was whether the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section concerns the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks. The delegate also considered the implications of the applicant being an overseas entity without an Australian address for service, and whether the applicant should have been invited to amend the specifications of goods and services.
The delegate found that the opponent had established, on the balance of probabilities, that a ground of opposition under section 44 existed in relation to some of the goods. The delegate determined that the applicant, being an overseas applicant without an address for service in Australia or New Zealand, was not invited to amend the specification of goods and services. Consequently, the delegate refused to register each of the trade mark applications in their entirety. The delegate awarded costs to the opponent, with reduced costs for one of the applications, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
The primary legal issue was whether the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section concerns the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks. The delegate also considered the implications of the applicant being an overseas entity without an Australian address for service, and whether the applicant should have been invited to amend the specifications of goods and services.
The delegate found that the opponent had established, on the balance of probabilities, that a ground of opposition under section 44 existed in relation to some of the goods. The delegate determined that the applicant, being an overseas applicant without an address for service in Australia or New Zealand, was not invited to amend the specification of goods and services. Consequently, the delegate refused to register each of the trade mark applications in their entirety. The delegate awarded costs to the opponent, with reduced costs for one of the applications, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australasian Conference Association Limited v Target Brands Inc [2023] ATMO 154
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Australasian Conference Association Limited v Target Brands Inc
[2023] ATMO 154
Monster Energy Company v YG Entertainment Inc
[2022] ATMO 125
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Pty Ltd
[2004] FCAFC 196
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663