Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited
Case
•
[2011] ATMO 34
•19 April 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2011] ATMO 34
[2011] ATMO 34
19 April 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd (the opponent) to the registration of a trade mark by Telstra Corporation Limited (the applicant). The dispute arose from the applicant's attempt to register a trade mark, and the opponent's objection to this registration. The decision was made by T. E. Williams, a Hearing Officer, acting under delegation from the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the opponent had established a valid ground of opposition under section 59 of the relevant legislation. This section typically relates to the use of a trade mark in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The evidence presented by both parties focused on the use of the colour yellow and the word "yellow" in relation to directory services and advertising.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established a ground of opposition under section 59. While the evidence detailed various uses of yellow paper and the word "yellow" by different entities, including the opponent and the applicant's subsidiary, Sensis, the Hearing Officer concluded that these uses did not, in the context of section 59, prevent the applicant's trade mark from proceeding to registration. The decision noted that the trade mark application could proceed to registration, subject to another opposition and any potential appeal. The applicant was awarded costs against the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the opponent had established a valid ground of opposition under section 59 of the relevant legislation. This section typically relates to the use of a trade mark in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The evidence presented by both parties focused on the use of the colour yellow and the word "yellow" in relation to directory services and advertising.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established a ground of opposition under section 59. While the evidence detailed various uses of yellow paper and the word "yellow" by different entities, including the opponent and the applicant's subsidiary, Sensis, the Hearing Officer concluded that these uses did not, in the context of section 59, prevent the applicant's trade mark from proceeding to registration. The decision noted that the trade mark application could proceed to registration, subject to another opposition and any potential appeal. The applicant was awarded costs against the opponent.
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
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
0
Sports Warehouse, Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd
[2010] FCA 664
Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited
[2010] FCA 638
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663