Opposition by The Dow Chemical Company to registration of trade mark application number 1859190 (17,19) – SLABMATE – in the name of Foilboard Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 151
•21 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by The Dow Chemical Company to registration of trade mark application number 1859190 (17,19) – SLABMATE – in the name of Foilboard Australia Pty Ltd [2019] ATMO 151
[2019] ATMO 151
21 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by The Dow Chemical Company to the registration of the trade mark application number 1859190, SLABMATE, filed by Foilboard Australia Pty Ltd. The opposition was heard by Debrett Lyons, a Hearing Officer.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark, SLABMATE, was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to any of the opponent's registered trade marks, specifically ROOFMATE, FLOORMATE, DECKMATE, CLADMATE, and WEATHERMATE, in relation to similar goods, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent contended that SLABMATE was visually, aurally, and conceptually similar to its registered marks, all of which shared the common suffix "MATE" and had earlier priority dates.
The Hearing Officer considered the opponent's submissions regarding the visual construction, aural similarities, and conceptual similarities of the marks. The opponent argued that the common suffix "MATE" was distinctive and memorable, and that the combination of a descriptive first element with "MATE" created a consistent conceptual structure across all the marks. The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established a ground of opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided to allow the trade mark application to proceed to registration, subject to the usual one-month period for appeal. The applicant was awarded costs against the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark, SLABMATE, was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to any of the opponent's registered trade marks, specifically ROOFMATE, FLOORMATE, DECKMATE, CLADMATE, and WEATHERMATE, in relation to similar goods, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opponent contended that SLABMATE was visually, aurally, and conceptually similar to its registered marks, all of which shared the common suffix "MATE" and had earlier priority dates.
The Hearing Officer considered the opponent's submissions regarding the visual construction, aural similarities, and conceptual similarities of the marks. The opponent argued that the common suffix "MATE" was distinctive and memorable, and that the combination of a descriptive first element with "MATE" created a consistent conceptual structure across all the marks. The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established a ground of opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided to allow the trade mark application to proceed to registration, subject to the usual one-month period for appeal. The applicant was awarded costs against the opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd v Gymboree Pty Ltd
[2000] FCA 618