Opposition by Muller et Cie to application under section 92 of the Act by Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. to remove trade mark number 1279016 (IRDA 986923) (9, 11) – AIRELEC - in the name of Muller et Cie.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 17
•26 February 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Muller et Cie to application under section 92 of the Act by Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. to remove trade mark number 1279016 (IRDA 986923) (9, 11) – AIRELEC - in the name of Muller et Cie. [2021] ATMO 17
[2021] ATMO 17
26 February 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Muller et Cie to an application by Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) to remove trade mark number 1279016 (AIRELEC) from the Register. The application for removal was based on allegations of non-use of the trade mark during the relevant period. The decision was made by Bianca Irgang.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. had established use of the AIRELEC trade mark in relation to any of the goods for which it was registered during the period specified in the application for removal. If no such use was established, the court was required to determine whether the extension of protection for the trade mark should cease and the trade mark removed from the Register.
The court found that Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. had failed to establish use of the trade mark during the relevant period on any of the goods for which it was registered. Consequently, the court ordered that the extension of protection for trade mark number 1279016 should cease and that the trade mark be removed from the Register. The court also ordered that Muller et Cie should pay Arlec Australia Pty Ltd.'s costs as allowed by Schedule 8 of the Regulations, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. had established use of the AIRELEC trade mark in relation to any of the goods for which it was registered during the period specified in the application for removal. If no such use was established, the court was required to determine whether the extension of protection for the trade mark should cease and the trade mark removed from the Register.
The court found that Arlec Australia Pty Ltd. had failed to establish use of the trade mark during the relevant period on any of the goods for which it was registered. Consequently, the court ordered that the extension of protection for trade mark number 1279016 should cease and that the trade mark be removed from the Register. The court also ordered that Muller et Cie should pay Arlec Australia Pty Ltd.'s costs as allowed by Schedule 8 of the Regulations, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261
Courier Luggage Pty Ltd v Wenger SA Inc
[2015] ATMO 10
E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd
[2010] HCA 15