Opposition by Salesforce.com, Inc to registration of trade mark application number 1831105 (class 9, 16 and 42) – Force | React with cloud device - in the name of Intygrate Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 103
•1st July 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Salesforce.com, Inc to registration of trade mark application number 1831105 (class 9, 16 and 42) – Force | React with cloud device - in the name of Intygrate Pty Ltd. [2019] ATMO 103
[2019] ATMO 103
1st July 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Salesforce.com, Inc. to the registration of trade mark application number 1831105, filed by Intygrate Pty Ltd, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, and 42. The application sought to register the mark "Force | React with cloud device". The opposition was heard by Aaron Walters, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's trade mark application should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which deals with the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks. The opponent also raised grounds under sections 42(b), 58, 59, 60, and 62A of the Act, though it later indicated it would not press the ground under section 59. The onus of proof rested on the opponent, to be determined on the balance of probabilities as at the filing date of the application, 15 March 2017.
The delegate considered the essential features of the opponent's registered "Force Marks" and the applicant's proposed mark. Applying the principles from *Millennium & Copthorne International Limited v Kingsgate Hotel Group Pty Ltd* and *de Cordova v Vick Chemical Co*, the delegate determined that the word "FORCE" was the sole essential element of the opponent's registered marks. Despite the presence of the word "REACT" and the cloud device in the applicant's mark, the delegate found that the inclusion of "FORCE" created a real and tangible likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers, who might retain an imperfect recollection of the opponent's marks.
Consequently, the delegate found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act had been established. Accordingly, the delegate refused to register trade mark application number 1831105 and awarded costs to the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's trade mark application should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which deals with the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks. The opponent also raised grounds under sections 42(b), 58, 59, 60, and 62A of the Act, though it later indicated it would not press the ground under section 59. The onus of proof rested on the opponent, to be determined on the balance of probabilities as at the filing date of the application, 15 March 2017.
The delegate considered the essential features of the opponent's registered "Force Marks" and the applicant's proposed mark. Applying the principles from *Millennium & Copthorne International Limited v Kingsgate Hotel Group Pty Ltd* and *de Cordova v Vick Chemical Co*, the delegate determined that the word "FORCE" was the sole essential element of the opponent's registered marks. Despite the presence of the word "REACT" and the cloud device in the applicant's mark, the delegate found that the inclusion of "FORCE" created a real and tangible likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers, who might retain an imperfect recollection of the opponent's marks.
Consequently, the delegate found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act had been established. Accordingly, the delegate refused to register trade mark application number 1831105 and awarded costs to the opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Pty Ltd
[2004] FCAFC 196