Opposition by REA Group Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1890093 (class 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42) – REALESTATESTORE.COM.AU and device - in the name of Real Estate Store Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 18
•4 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by REA Group Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1890093 (class 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42) – REALESTATESTORE.COM.AU and device - in the name of Real Estate Store Pty Ltd [2021] ATMO 18
[2021] ATMO 18
4 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by REA Group Ltd to the registration of the trade mark application number 1890093, comprising the words "REALESTATESTORE.COM.AU" and a device, in the name of Real Estate Store Pty Ltd. The application sought registration across classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42. The opposition was heard by Katrina Brown.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pursued under sections 42(b), 44, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent, REA Group Ltd, alleged that the applicant's mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its own registered marks, that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion, and that it was otherwise disentitled to registration.
The court found that the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* was established. This section deals with the registration of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a trade mark that has become generally known in Australia. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the applicant's mark failed to meet the requirements for registration on this basis.
Consequently, the court ordered that the registration of the trade mark application number 1890093 be refused. The court also awarded costs against the applicant, Real Estate Store Pty Ltd, in accordance with the usual principle that costs follow the event, and as set out in Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995*.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pursued under sections 42(b), 44, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent, REA Group Ltd, alleged that the applicant's mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its own registered marks, that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion, and that it was otherwise disentitled to registration.
The court found that the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* was established. This section deals with the registration of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a trade mark that has become generally known in Australia. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the applicant's mark failed to meet the requirements for registration on this basis.
Consequently, the court ordered that the registration of the trade mark application number 1890093 be refused. The court also awarded costs against the applicant, Real Estate Store Pty Ltd, in accordance with the usual principle that costs follow the event, and as set out in Schedule 8 of the *Trade Marks 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
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick
[2000] FCA 1335
Renaud Cointreau v Cordon Bleu International Ltee
[2001] FCA 1170