Opposition by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC to registration of trade mark application no.(s) 1778474 and 1778547 (8, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 35, 43) – W WYLARAH (stylized) - in the name of AACo Innovation Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 152
•21 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC to registration of trade mark application no.(s) 1778474 and 1778547 (8, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 35, 43) – W WYLARAH (stylized) - in the name of AACo Innovation Pty Ltd [2019] ATMO 152
[2019] ATMO 152
21 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC to the registration of two trade mark applications, nos. 1778474 and 1778547, filed by AACo Innovation Pty Ltd. The applications sought to register the stylized mark "WYLARAH" across various classes, including 8, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 35, and 43. The opposition was heard by Bianca Irgang, acting as delegate for the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark applications should be refused under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) on the grounds that the mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, and whether the mark was deceptive or confusingly similar to existing registered trade marks owned by the opponent, pursuant to section 60 of the Act. The opponent also raised grounds under sections 44 and 58, but these were not pursued.
In her reasoning, the delegate considered the inherent nature of the mark "WYLARAH" and its potential to distinguish the applicant's goods and services. She also assessed the likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and the opponent's registered trade marks, taking into account the respective goods and services, the visual and phonetic similarities, and the overall commercial impression of the marks. The delegate applied established principles of trade mark law concerning distinctiveness and the assessment of deceptive or confusing similarity.
The delegate found that the trade mark application no. 1778474 should be refused under section 41 of the Act as it was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services. However, the delegate found that trade mark application no. 1778547 should proceed to registration, as the grounds of opposition were not established in relation to this application.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark applications should be refused under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) on the grounds that the mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, and whether the mark was deceptive or confusingly similar to existing registered trade marks owned by the opponent, pursuant to section 60 of the Act. The opponent also raised grounds under sections 44 and 58, but these were not pursued.
In her reasoning, the delegate considered the inherent nature of the mark "WYLARAH" and its potential to distinguish the applicant's goods and services. She also assessed the likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and the opponent's registered trade marks, taking into account the respective goods and services, the visual and phonetic similarities, and the overall commercial impression of the marks. The delegate applied established principles of trade mark law concerning distinctiveness and the assessment of deceptive or confusing similarity.
The delegate found that the trade mark application no. 1778474 should be refused under section 41 of the Act as it was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services. However, the delegate found that trade mark application no. 1778547 should proceed to registration, as the grounds of opposition were not established in relation to this application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020