Opposition by Superfinish Automotive Pty Ltd as trustee for the Superfinish Trust to an application by Honey’s Group of Companies Pty Ltd for partial removal of trade mark registration number 1196649 (class 37) –...
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 104
•17 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Superfinish Automotive Pty Ltd as trustee for the Superfinish Trust to an application by Honey’s Group of Companies Pty Ltd for partial removal of trade mark registration number 1196649 (class 37) –... [2021] ATMO 104
[2021] ATMO 104
17 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Superfinish Automotive Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Superfinish Trust (the Opponent), opposed an application by Honey’s Group of Companies Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the partial removal of trade mark registration number 1196649 from the Register of Trade Marks in Class 37. The dispute concerned whether the trade mark had been genuinely used in Australia in relation to the services for which it was registered, or services similar to them, during the relevant period. The matter was heard by Nicole Worth.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant had established genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the disputed services and any services similar to them, as required by section 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent contended that the trade mark had been used in relation to all services for which it was registered, thereby opposing the Applicant's request for partial removal.
The court considered evidence of the Opponent's business operations, including its website and Facebook pages, which advertised services such as same-day minor repairs to dings, dents, scratches, and alloy wheel damage. Crucially, evidence from within the relevant period indicated that the Opponent also advertised "car detailing" and services to restore headlights, which the court considered to be services similar to those for which the trade mark was registered. The court applied the principle that use of a trade mark in relation to services similar to those for which it is registered can satisfy the genuine use requirement.
The court found that the Opponent had established genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the disputed services and services similar to them. Consequently, the application for partial removal of the trade mark registration was dismissed, and the trade mark was ordered to remain registered for all services.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant had established genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the disputed services and any services similar to them, as required by section 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Opponent contended that the trade mark had been used in relation to all services for which it was registered, thereby opposing the Applicant's request for partial removal.
The court considered evidence of the Opponent's business operations, including its website and Facebook pages, which advertised services such as same-day minor repairs to dings, dents, scratches, and alloy wheel damage. Crucially, evidence from within the relevant period indicated that the Opponent also advertised "car detailing" and services to restore headlights, which the court considered to be services similar to those for which the trade mark was registered. The court applied the principle that use of a trade mark in relation to services similar to those for which it is registered can satisfy the genuine use requirement.
The court found that the Opponent had established genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the disputed services and services similar to them. Consequently, the application for partial removal of the trade mark registration was dismissed, and the trade mark was ordered to remain registered for all services.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0