Opposition by Xero Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1842087 (class 35, 38) - ZERO - in the name of Muneebuddin Mohammed
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 178
•17 December 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Xero Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1842087 (class 35, 38) - ZERO - in the name of Muneebuddin Mohammed [2019] ATMO 178
[2019] ATMO 178
17 December 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Xero Limited opposed the registration of the trade mark application number 1842087, for the mark ZERO, in classes 35 and 38, by Muneebuddin Mohammed. The opposition was heard by Jock McDonagh.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's mark ZERO was deceptively similar to Xero Limited's registered trade marks under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), whether the applicant was the owner of the mark under section 58, and whether the registration would be contrary to law under section 62. The court also considered section 60, which deals with the use of a trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia.
The court found that the mark ZERO was deceptively similar to Xero Limited's registered marks, particularly given the commonality in pronunciation and visual appearance, and the nature of the goods and services offered by both parties. The court also found that Xero Limited had established a reputation in Australia for its trade marks under section 60, and that the applicant had not established ownership of the mark under section 58. Consequently, the court determined that the registration of the applicant's mark would be contrary to law.
The court ordered that the application for registration of the trade mark ZERO be refused.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's mark ZERO was deceptively similar to Xero Limited's registered trade marks under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), whether the applicant was the owner of the mark under section 58, and whether the registration would be contrary to law under section 62. The court also considered section 60, which deals with the use of a trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia.
The court found that the mark ZERO was deceptively similar to Xero Limited's registered marks, particularly given the commonality in pronunciation and visual appearance, and the nature of the goods and services offered by both parties. The court also found that Xero Limited had established a reputation in Australia for its trade marks under section 60, and that the applicant had not established ownership of the mark under section 58. Consequently, the court determined that the registration of the applicant's mark would be contrary to law.
The court ordered that the application for registration of the trade mark ZERO be refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0