Oppositions by Groupe Canal+ to registration of trade mark application numbers 2111055 BRAZZERS+, 2111056 BRAZZERS+ Logo, and 2111057 BRAZZERS+ (colour) (classes 9, 25, 35, 38, 41 & 45) - in the name of Licensing...
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 40
•22 March 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Oppositions by Groupe Canal+ to registration of trade mark application numbers 2111055 BRAZZERS+, 2111056 BRAZZERS+ Logo, and 2111057 BRAZZERS+ (colour) (classes 9, 25, 35, 38, 41 & 45) - in the name of Licensing... [2022] ATMO 40
[2022] ATMO 40
22 March 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Groupe Canal+ opposed the registration of three trade mark applications by Licensing... (the Applicant) for the marks BRAZZERS+, BRAZZERS+ Logo, and BRAZZERS+ (colour) across various classes including 9, 25, 35, 38, 41, and 45. The opposition was heard by Tracey Berger, acting as delegate for the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the Applicant's trade marks should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition under sections 42, 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Section 42 concerns the use of a trade mark that would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, section 44 deals with the identity or similarity of marks and goods/services, and section 60 addresses the use of a trade mark that has become generally recognised as distinctive of the goods or services of another person.
The delegate found that the Opponent had not established any of the nominated grounds of opposition. Consequently, the Applicant's trade marks were permitted to proceed to registration. The Applicant was awarded costs in respect of trade mark application number 2111055, and reduced costs in respect of trade mark application numbers 2111056 and 2111057, against the Opponent. Registration was to be deferred for one month to allow for any potential appeal.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the Applicant's trade marks should be refused registration on the grounds of opposition under sections 42, 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Section 42 concerns the use of a trade mark that would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, section 44 deals with the identity or similarity of marks and goods/services, and section 60 addresses the use of a trade mark that has become generally recognised as distinctive of the goods or services of another person.
The delegate found that the Opponent had not established any of the nominated grounds of opposition. Consequently, the Applicant's trade marks were permitted to proceed to registration. The Applicant was awarded costs in respect of trade mark application number 2111055, and reduced costs in respect of trade mark application numbers 2111056 and 2111057, against the Opponent. Registration was to be deferred for one month to allow for any potential appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020