Opposition by Zero Motorcycles Inc to registration of trade mark application number 2056360 (Class 12) – BENZINA ZERO figurative - in the name of Benzina Zero Pty Ltd.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 156
•16 December 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Zero Motorcycles Inc to registration of trade mark application number 2056360 (Class 12) – BENZINA ZERO figurative - in the name of Benzina Zero Pty Ltd. [2021] ATMO 156
[2021] ATMO 156
16 December 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Zero Motorcycles Inc to the registration of the figurative trade mark BENZINA ZERO in Class 12, filed by Benzina Zero Pty Ltd. The opposition was heard by Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under regulation 4.15A of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth), were established. This regulation pertains to the use of a trade mark in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Hearing Officer's reasoning focused on an amendment made to the trade mark application by the applicant, Benzina Zero Pty Ltd. Following this amendment, the Hearing Officer found that the opponent, Zero Motorcycles Inc, had failed to establish the ground of opposition under regulation 4.15A in relation to push scooters (vehicles). Consequently, the trade mark was permitted to proceed to registration for push scooters (vehicles) after a specified period, subject to any appeal. The Hearing Officer also ordered that the applicant pay the opponent's costs, as the opponent was largely successful in the opposition.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under regulation 4.15A of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth), were established. This regulation pertains to the use of a trade mark in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The Hearing Officer's reasoning focused on an amendment made to the trade mark application by the applicant, Benzina Zero Pty Ltd. Following this amendment, the Hearing Officer found that the opponent, Zero Motorcycles Inc, had failed to establish the ground of opposition under regulation 4.15A in relation to push scooters (vehicles). Consequently, the trade mark was permitted to proceed to registration for push scooters (vehicles) after a specified period, subject to any appeal. The Hearing Officer also ordered that the applicant pay the opponent's costs, as the opponent was largely successful in the opposition.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Zero Motorcycles Inc v Benzina Zero Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 177
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020