Proposed revocation of acceptance of trade mark application number 2074402 (classes 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45) – VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES and device – in the name of Valiant Integrated Services LLC.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 45
•27 May 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Proposed revocation of acceptance of trade mark application number 2074402 (classes 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45) – VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES and device – in the name of Valiant Integrated Services LLC. [[2021]] ATMO 45
[2021] ATMO 45
27 May 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a proposed revocation of the acceptance of trade mark application number 2074402, for the mark VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES and device, filed by Valiant Integrated Services LLC. The application covered a broad range of services across classes 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. The decision was made by Nicole Worth.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the acceptance of the trade mark application ought to be revoked pursuant to section 38 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved a consideration of whether the application should not have been accepted in the first place, particularly in light of potential similarities with existing registered trade marks under section 44 of the Act.
The delegate considered the evidence and submissions presented, and concluded that there was insufficient basis to revoke the acceptance of the trade mark application. The delegate found that the grounds for revocation, as contemplated by section 38, were not made out. Consequently, the delegate determined that the application should not have been accepted, and therefore, the acceptance was not revoked.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the acceptance of the trade mark application ought to be revoked pursuant to section 38 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved a consideration of whether the application should not have been accepted in the first place, particularly in light of potential similarities with existing registered trade marks under section 44 of the Act.
The delegate considered the evidence and submissions presented, and concluded that there was insufficient basis to revoke the acceptance of the trade mark application. The delegate found that the grounds for revocation, as contemplated by section 38, were not made out. Consequently, the delegate determined that the application should not have been accepted, and therefore, the acceptance was not revoked.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Globalscope Pty Ltd
[2016] ATMO 14
Re Bobart
[2010] ATMO 43