Opposition by Segator Pty Limited to registration of trade mark application 1849584 (30) PAGOTO gelato & waffle house (fancy) in the name of FKS Australia Pty Limited
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 190
•14 December 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Segator Pty Limited to registration of trade mark application 1849584 (30) PAGOTO gelato & waffle house (fancy) in the name of FKS Australia Pty Limited [2020] ATMO 190
[2020] ATMO 190
14 December 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns an opposition by Segator Pty Limited to the registration of trade mark application 1849584, for the mark PAGOTO gelato & waffle house (fancy), in the name of FKS Australia Pty Limited. The opposition was heard by Debrett Lyons.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trade mark application should be refused registration under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section concerns the inherent adaptability of a mark to distinguish the goods or services of the applicant. The opponent argued that the words comprising the trade mark, including "PAGOTO", "GELATO", "WAFFLE", and "HOUSE", were individually and in combination descriptive of the goods, and that the device element did not add sufficient distinction.
The court followed the reasoning of Hearing Officer Thompson in an earlier, unreported decision between the same parties concerning a similar trade mark application. In that earlier decision, it was found that the Greek word "pagoto" translates to "ice cream" and is therefore directly descriptive of the goods. The court agreed that the word "pagoto", when considered in relation to the goods, would be understood by Australian consumers as meaning ice cream. The court found that the re-positioning and relative dominance of the word "pagoto" in the opposed mark devalued any distinctiveness contributed by the scoop device, rendering the mark descriptive of the goods. The court concluded that section 41(4) of the Act applied, and the applicant had not provided evidence to satisfy the Registrar that the mark was likely to distinguish the applicant's goods.
The court ordered that the registration of the trade mark application be refused.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trade mark application should be refused registration under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This section concerns the inherent adaptability of a mark to distinguish the goods or services of the applicant. The opponent argued that the words comprising the trade mark, including "PAGOTO", "GELATO", "WAFFLE", and "HOUSE", were individually and in combination descriptive of the goods, and that the device element did not add sufficient distinction.
The court followed the reasoning of Hearing Officer Thompson in an earlier, unreported decision between the same parties concerning a similar trade mark application. In that earlier decision, it was found that the Greek word "pagoto" translates to "ice cream" and is therefore directly descriptive of the goods. The court agreed that the word "pagoto", when considered in relation to the goods, would be understood by Australian consumers as meaning ice cream. The court found that the re-positioning and relative dominance of the word "pagoto" in the opposed mark devalued any distinctiveness contributed by the scoop device, rendering the mark descriptive of the goods. The court concluded that section 41(4) of the Act applied, and the applicant had not provided evidence to satisfy the Registrar that the mark was likely to distinguish the applicant's goods.
The court ordered that the registration of the trade mark application be refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Christodoulou v Disney Enterprises Inc
[2005] FCA 1401
Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation
[2019] FCAFC 115