RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited v Real Asset Management Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2024] ATMO 110
•19 June 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited v Real Asset Management Pty Ltd [2024] ATMO 110
[2024] ATMO 110
19 June 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (the Applicant) sought to register two trade marks, numbers 2062766 and 2178920. Real Asset Management Pty Ltd (the Opponent) opposed these applications. The matter was heard by Anne Makrigiorgos, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition pursued, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 58, 59, 60, 62(b), and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). A preliminary matter also arose concerning the Opponent's lack of notification regarding the Applicant's deletion of divisional claims and the consequent change in priority dates, which the Opponent argued had deprived it of sufficient time to consider additional grounds of opposition.
The delegate found that the Opponent had established the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. Consequently, the delegate refused to register both trade marks. The delegate also directed that registration should not occur pending any appeal. Both parties sought costs, and the delegate awarded costs against the Applicant, with costs for one opposition being at the standard rate and costs for the other being reduced.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition pursued, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 58, 59, 60, 62(b), and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). A preliminary matter also arose concerning the Opponent's lack of notification regarding the Applicant's deletion of divisional claims and the consequent change in priority dates, which the Opponent argued had deprived it of sufficient time to consider additional grounds of opposition.
The delegate found that the Opponent had established the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. Consequently, the delegate refused to register both trade marks. The delegate also directed that registration should not occur pending any appeal. Both parties sought costs, and the delegate awarded costs against the Applicant, with costs for one opposition being at the standard rate and costs for the other being reduced.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
6
k-Tec, Inc v Healthy Foods, LLC
[2016] ATMO 4
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58