Opposition by Schubert & Schubert LLC to registration of trade mark number 1966495 - FUR figurative (Classes 3 and 44), and trade mark number 1976490 – Fur Hairdressing (Class 3) - in the name of Fur Hairdressing...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 129
•28 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Schubert & Schubert LLC to registration of trade mark number 1966495 - FUR figurative (Classes 3 and 44), and trade mark number 1976490 – Fur Hairdressing (Class 3) - in the name of Fur Hairdressing... [2021] ATMO 129
[2021] ATMO 129
28 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned oppositions by Schubert & Schubert LLC (the Opponent) to the registration of two trade marks in the name of Fur Hairdressing (the Applicant): trade mark number 1966495, a figurative mark for goods in Classes 3 and 44, and trade mark number 1976490, the words "Fur Hairdressing" for goods in Class 3. The oppositions were heard by Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer included whether the Opponent had established grounds for opposition under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent bore the burden of proving these grounds on the balance of probabilities, with the rights of the parties assessed as at the filing dates of the Applicant's trade mark applications.
The Hearing Officer found that the grounds of opposition under section 44 were partially established. However, following amendments made to the goods and services associated with the Applicant's trade marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the trade marks could proceed to registration, subject to a stay of registration if a notice of appeal was filed. As both parties had achieved a measure of success, no order for costs was made.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer included whether the Opponent had established grounds for opposition under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent bore the burden of proving these grounds on the balance of probabilities, with the rights of the parties assessed as at the filing dates of the Applicant's trade mark applications.
The Hearing Officer found that the grounds of opposition under section 44 were partially established. However, following amendments made to the goods and services associated with the Applicant's trade marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the nominated grounds of opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the trade marks could proceed to registration, subject to a stay of registration if a notice of appeal was filed. As both parties had achieved a measure of success, no order for costs was made.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020