Opposition by Stone Paper Global Technologies Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2022778 (class 16) – Karst Stone Paper – in the name of Karst Group Pty Ltd and Kevin Garcia
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 46
•29 March 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Stone Paper Global Technologies Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2022778 (class 16) – Karst Stone Paper – in the name of Karst Group Pty Ltd and Kevin Garcia [2022] ATMO 46
[2022] ATMO 46
29 March 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition by Stone Paper Global Technologies Ltd to the registration of trade mark application number 2022778, for "Karst Stone Paper" in class 16, filed by Karst Group Pty Ltd and Kevin Garcia. The matter was heard by Katrina Brown, a Hearing Officer.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether any of the grounds of opposition pursued under sections 42(b), 58, 59, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. Specifically, the opposition included an allegation of bad faith under section 62A.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertions, particularly concerning the ground of bad faith under section 62A. Applying the principle that the onus of demonstrating bad faith rests on the party making the allegation and requires evidence to satisfy the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Hearing Officer concluded that the ground of opposition under section 62A was not established. As no grounds of opposition were established, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The trade mark application number 2022778 was ordered to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, with a direction that registration would be stayed pending any appeal.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether any of the grounds of opposition pursued under sections 42(b), 58, 59, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. Specifically, the opposition included an allegation of bad faith under section 62A.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertions, particularly concerning the ground of bad faith under section 62A. Applying the principle that the onus of demonstrating bad faith rests on the party making the allegation and requires evidence to satisfy the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Hearing Officer concluded that the ground of opposition under section 62A was not established. As no grounds of opposition were established, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The trade mark application number 2022778 was ordered to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, with a direction that registration would be stayed pending any appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Intention
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
0
Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd
[2008] ATMO 17
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd
[1994] FCA 936