Pernod Ricard S.A. Trading as Pernod Ricard Europe v Soho Wine Company Limited
Case
•
[2011] ATMO 111
•14 November 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pernod Ricard S.A. Trading as Pernod Ricard Europe v Soho Wine Company Limited [2011] ATMO 111
[2011] ATMO 111
14 November 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an application for trade mark registration brought by Pernod Ricard S.A. Trading as Pernod Ricard Europe against an opposition lodged by Soho Wine Company Limited. The dispute revolved around the registrability of a trade mark application, specifically application number 1242099, in relation to certain goods. The decision was made by Iain Thompson.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trade mark application should be registered, having regard to the grounds on which the opposition was based and the extent to which those grounds were established. This required the court to consider the provisions of section 55 of the relevant Act, which outlines the Registrar's obligations in deciding whether to register a trade mark following an opposition.
The court reasoned that the opposition had been established only in relation to goods within Class 33 of the application. While the opposition was not argued in relation to goods in Class 32, and these goods did not attract specific comment from the opponent, the court found it convenient to refuse the entire application initially. However, the court provided an alternative: if the applicant amended its application within one month to remove both the Class 33 claim and specific wine categories from the specification of goods, the application could proceed to registration. The opponent was awarded costs against the applicant, as they were considered to have been successful in relation to the goods of interest to both parties.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trade mark application should be registered, having regard to the grounds on which the opposition was based and the extent to which those grounds were established. This required the court to consider the provisions of section 55 of the relevant Act, which outlines the Registrar's obligations in deciding whether to register a trade mark following an opposition.
The court reasoned that the opposition had been established only in relation to goods within Class 33 of the application. While the opposition was not argued in relation to goods in Class 32, and these goods did not attract specific comment from the opponent, the court found it convenient to refuse the entire application initially. However, the court provided an alternative: if the applicant amended its application within one month to remove both the Class 33 claim and specific wine categories from the specification of goods, the application could proceed to registration. The opponent was awarded costs against the applicant, as they were considered to have been successful in relation to the goods of interest to both parties.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pernod Ricard S.A. Trading as Pernod Ricard Europe v Soho Wine Company Limited [2011] ATMO 111
Most Recent Citation
Basic Trademark S.A. v Karelia Tobacco Company Inc [2012] ATMO 125
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Mark Robinson and Brenda Robinson v Henkel AG & Co KGaA
[2023] ATMO 97
Basic Trademark S.A. v Karelia Tobacco Company Inc
[2012] ATMO 125
Cases Cited
24
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891