Re: Opposition by AR & Ss Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 2026139 (3, 44) - Hair Crew & Co - in the name of Bilal Hammoud
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 83
•10 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by AR & Ss Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application 2026139 (3, 44) - Hair Crew & Co - in the name of Bilal Hammoud [2021] ATMO 83
[2021] ATMO 83
10 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by AR & Ss Pty Ltd (the Opponent) to the registration of the trade mark application 2026139, HAIR CREW & CO, in the name of Bilal Hammoud (the Applicant). The opposition was heard by Nicholas Smith, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. The Opponent alleged that the Applicant had no right, title, or interest in the trade mark and that the application was made in bad faith.
The delegate found that the Opponent had provided uncontradicted evidence demonstrating that the Applicant was aware of the Opponent's intention to establish a business under the name HAIR CREW & CO. This occurred after a breakdown in a prior business relationship between the parties. The delegate noted that the Applicant had not used the trade mark and had taken no significant steps to use it since the application was filed. Applying the principles from *Fry* and considering the circumstances, including the acrimonious relationship and the Applicant's lack of prior use or connection to the mark, the delegate concluded that the Applicant's conduct in applying to register the trade mark would be regarded as being in bad faith.
Consequently, the delegate found that the Opponent had established its ground of opposition under section 62A and ordered that the trade mark application be refused registration. The refusal was to be recorded one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. The Opponent alleged that the Applicant had no right, title, or interest in the trade mark and that the application was made in bad faith.
The delegate found that the Opponent had provided uncontradicted evidence demonstrating that the Applicant was aware of the Opponent's intention to establish a business under the name HAIR CREW & CO. This occurred after a breakdown in a prior business relationship between the parties. The delegate noted that the Applicant had not used the trade mark and had taken no significant steps to use it since the application was filed. Applying the principles from *Fry* and considering the circumstances, including the acrimonious relationship and the Applicant's lack of prior use or connection to the mark, the delegate concluded that the Applicant's conduct in applying to register the trade mark would be regarded as being in bad faith.
Consequently, the delegate found that the Opponent had established its ground of opposition under section 62A and ordered that the trade mark application be refused registration. The refusal was to be recorded one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Intention
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd
[2008] ATMO 17
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58