Oppositions by Grayson’s International Pty Ltd to applications under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Petesal Enterprises Pty Ltd for removal of trade mark number 831484 (Classes 6, 9, and 37) –...
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 13
•1 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Oppositions by Grayson’s International Pty Ltd to applications under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Petesal Enterprises Pty Ltd for removal of trade mark number 831484 (Classes 6, 9, and 37) –... [2022] ATMO 13
[2022] ATMO 13
1 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned oppositions by Grayson’s International Pty Ltd (the Removal Opponent) to applications by Petesal Enterprises Pty Ltd (the Removal Applicant) for the removal of trade mark number 831484 from the register under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The trade mark was registered in Classes 6, 9, and 37. The dispute centred on whether the registered owner had used the trade mark in relation to the goods and services for which it was registered. The decision was made by Blake Knowles, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was to determine whether the Removal Opponent had established use of the trade mark in relation to all the goods and services covered by the registration during the relevant period. This involved assessing the evidence of use provided by the Removal Opponent and considering whether any obstacles to use existed or if discretion should be exercised to allow the trade mark to remain registered for certain goods and services despite a lack of established use for others.
The delegate found that the Removal Opponent had successfully established use of the Logo Mark and Word Mark in relation to non-metallic mesh coverings for gutterings, spoutings, and water containers in Class 19. However, for the remaining goods and services covered by the registrations, the delegate was not satisfied that sufficient use had been demonstrated or that there were relevant obstacles to use that would justify exercising discretion to allow the registrations to remain. Consequently, the delegate ordered that the registrations be removed from the register for all goods and services except for those in Class 19. The removals were stayed for one month to allow for potential appeals, and costs were not awarded as both parties had achieved a measure of success.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was to determine whether the Removal Opponent had established use of the trade mark in relation to all the goods and services covered by the registration during the relevant period. This involved assessing the evidence of use provided by the Removal Opponent and considering whether any obstacles to use existed or if discretion should be exercised to allow the trade mark to remain registered for certain goods and services despite a lack of established use for others.
The delegate found that the Removal Opponent had successfully established use of the Logo Mark and Word Mark in relation to non-metallic mesh coverings for gutterings, spoutings, and water containers in Class 19. However, for the remaining goods and services covered by the registrations, the delegate was not satisfied that sufficient use had been demonstrated or that there were relevant obstacles to use that would justify exercising discretion to allow the registrations to remain. Consequently, the delegate ordered that the registrations be removed from the register for all goods and services except for those in Class 19. The removals were stayed for one month to allow for potential appeals, and costs were not awarded as both parties had achieved a measure of success.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
The Coca-Cola Company v All-Fect Distributors Ltd
[1999] FCA 1721
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261