Plant 10 Spirits LLC v Effen Holdings Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2009] ATMO 102
•8 December 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Plant 10 Spirits LLC v Effen Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] ATMO 102
[2009] ATMO 102
8 December 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Plant 10 Spirits LLC (the opponent) opposed Effen Holdings Pty Ltd's (the applicant) Australian trade mark application no. 1038686 for the word "EFFEN" in class 33 for "vodka". The opponent, a US-based company, asserted ownership of various US trade mark registrations for "EFFEN" and related marks, and claimed its EFFEN vodka was available in Australia. The opponent argued that the applicant had no intention to use the trade mark on all the goods and services within its specification due to the applicant's seemingly limited business activities.
The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether the opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition to the applicant's trade mark application. The onus was on the opponent to prove its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. In the event of an appeal, registration would be stayed until the appeal was discontinued or resolved by the courts. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent.
The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether the opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition to the applicant's trade mark application. The onus was on the opponent to prove its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. In the event of an appeal, registration would be stayed until the appeal was discontinued or resolved by the courts. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Intention
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
0
Apple Computer v TodayTech Group Pty Ltd
[2007] ATMO 40
Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd
[2008] FCA 100
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663