Opposition by Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2005063 (Classes 32, 33, and 35) – Southern Vintners & Negociants - in the name of Southern Vintners & Negociants Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 97
•6 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2005063 (Classes 32, 33, and 35) – Southern Vintners & Negociants - in the name of Southern Vintners & Negociants Pty Ltd. [2021] ATMO 97
[2021] ATMO 97
6 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd to the registration of trade mark application number 2005063, filed by Southern Vintners & Negociants Pty Ltd, for goods and services in Classes 32, 33, and 35. The opposition was heard by Blake Knowles.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pressed by the opponent under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the court was required to determine if the applicant's mark was deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark, if its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and if it was a prescribed particular of a geographical indication.
The court found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) was established. This section deals with the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark. Having established this ground, the court refused the registration of the trade mark application.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition pressed by the opponent under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the court was required to determine if the applicant's mark was deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark, if its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and if it was a prescribed particular of a geographical indication.
The court found that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) was established. This section deals with the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark. Having established this ground, the court refused the registration of the trade mark application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
iFIT Inc v Shanghai Sweat Technology Ltd [2023] ATMO 195
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020