Opposition by Suzannestaz Management Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2030992 (Classes 39 and 43) – Accessible Accommodation with device - in the name of September 7 Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 135
•9 November 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Suzannestaz Management Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2030992 (Classes 39 and 43) – Accessible Accommodation with device - in the name of September 7 Pty Ltd. [2021] ATMO 135
[2021] ATMO 135
9 November 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Suzannestaz Management Pty Ltd (the Opponent) to the registration of a trade mark application number 2030992, "Accessible Accommodation with device" (the Trade Mark), in Classes 39 and 43, filed by September 7 Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The decision was made by Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer, Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition relied upon, specifically under sections 43, 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 relevant date.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had not established any of the nominated grounds of opposition. The Opponent's arguments, including claims of reputation and likelihood of confusion based on its own registered mark and a separate logo, were not sufficient to meet the required legal thresholds for sections 43, 44, or 60. The Applicant's evidence of use of the Trade Mark since December 2017 was also considered.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the Trade Mark may proceed to registration, subject to a stay of one month or until any appeal is withdrawn or discontinued. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition relied upon, specifically under sections 43, 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 relevant date.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had not established any of the nominated grounds of opposition. The Opponent's arguments, including claims of reputation and likelihood of confusion based on its own registered mark and a separate logo, were not sufficient to meet the required legal thresholds for sections 43, 44, or 60. The Applicant's evidence of use of the Trade Mark since December 2017 was also considered.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered that the Trade Mark may proceed to registration, subject to a stay of one month or until any appeal is withdrawn or discontinued. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020