Opposition by Newmark Capital Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1852349 (Classes 14, 20, 21, and 41) – JamFactory - in the name of JamFactory Contemporary Craft & Design Incorporated.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 87
•02 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Newmark Capital Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1852349 (Classes 14, 20, 21, and 41) – JamFactory - in the name of JamFactory Contemporary Craft & Design Incorporated. [2021] ATMO 87
[2021] ATMO 87
02 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Newmark Capital Limited to the registration of a trade mark application by JamFactory Contemporary Craft & Design Incorporated. The opposition was brought under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), with grounds considered under sections 44, 58A, and 60 of the Act. The decision was made by Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically those relating to the applicant's use of the trade mark in relation to goods and services within Classes 14, 20, 21, and 41, were established. The opposition was based on the opponent's prior use and registration of similar trade marks.
The Hearing Officer found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act was partially established, but only in relation to the goods in Class 14. As the applicant was given an opportunity to amend the application by deleting these goods, and this amendment was subsequently made, the opposition was not established for the remaining goods and services in Classes 20, 21, and 41. The Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition following the amendment.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the trade mark may proceed to registration not less than one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. As both parties had achieved a measure of success, costs were declined.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically those relating to the applicant's use of the trade mark in relation to goods and services within Classes 14, 20, 21, and 41, were established. The opposition was based on the opponent's prior use and registration of similar trade marks.
The Hearing Officer found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act was partially established, but only in relation to the goods in Class 14. As the applicant was given an opportunity to amend the application by deleting these goods, and this amendment was subsequently made, the opposition was not established for the remaining goods and services in Classes 20, 21, and 41. The Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition following the amendment.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the trade mark may proceed to registration not less than one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. As both parties had achieved a measure of success, costs were declined.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0