Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation

[2014] FCA 1063

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation [2014] FCA 1063

Citation:	Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation [2014] FCA 1063
Parties:	RAYTHEON COMPANY v LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
File number:	NSD 1941 of 2012
Judge:	PERRAM J
Date of judgment:	2 October 2014
Legislation:	Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 56
Cases cited:	Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2010] FCA 218 cited Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited [2011] FCA 300 cited
Date of hearing:	2 October 2014
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr RJ Webb SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Thomson Geer
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms F Marks
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Logie-Smith Lanyon

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1941 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RAYTHEON COMPANY Applicant
AND:	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 OCTOBER 2014
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS, BY CONSENT, THAT:

1.The appeal from the decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks given on 7 November 2012 in respect of Australian trade mark application No. 1065708 be allowed.

2.The decision be set aside.

3.Trade mark application No. 1065708, the subject of the appeal, proceed to registration.

4.No order is made as to costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1941 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RAYTHEON COMPANY Applicant
AND:	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	PERRAM J
DATE:	2 OCTOBER 2014
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a proceeding under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and relates to registration of the mark, ‘PAVEWAY’ in respect of class 13, that is to say, laser-guided bomb kits.

2. The parties have reached an accommodation and have decided that the mark should now proceed to registration. 

3. For the reasons given by Nicholas J in Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2010] FCA 218 and also by Dodds-Streeton J in Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited [2011] FCA 300, I am satisfied that I have the power to make an order setting aside the decision of the Registrar by consent and also to order that the registration of the mark now proceed.

4. Accordingly, I will make the orders that Mr Webb SC has handed up and which, it has been indicated to me, are otherwise by consent. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:       2 October 2014