Re: Opposition by Bacardi & Company Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1865411 (class 32) Royal Bombay Premium Lager in the name of Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 117
•1 July 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Bacardi & Company Limited to registration of trade mark application number 1865411 (class 32) Royal Bombay Premium Lager in the name of Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 117
[2020] ATMO 117
1 July 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Bacardi & Company Limited to the registration of the trade mark application number 1865411, "Royal Bombay Premium Lager," in class 32, filed by Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd. The opposition was heard by Adrian Richards.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Section 42(b) concerns whether the applicant is the owner of the trade mark or has the authority of the owner to apply for its registration. Section 44 deals with the potential for confusion with existing registered trade marks. Section 60 addresses whether the trade mark is, by reason of its being a mark of which the applicant is not the owner, likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b) and 60 were not established. Specifically, the delegate determined that the applicant was the owner of the trade mark and that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion under section 60. Regarding section 44, the delegate concluded that the applicant's trade mark was not deceptively similar to any of the opponent's registered trade marks, nor was it likely to cause confusion. Consequently, none of the grounds of opposition were made out.
The delegate ordered that the opposition be dismissed and that the trade mark application proceed to registration.
The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's trade mark should be refused registration under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Section 42(b) concerns whether the applicant is the owner of the trade mark or has the authority of the owner to apply for its registration. Section 44 deals with the potential for confusion with existing registered trade marks. Section 60 addresses whether the trade mark is, by reason of its being a mark of which the applicant is not the owner, likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the grounds of opposition under sections 42(b) and 60 were not established. Specifically, the delegate determined that the applicant was the owner of the trade mark and that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion under section 60. Regarding section 44, the delegate concluded that the applicant's trade mark was not deceptively similar to any of the opponent's registered trade marks, nor was it likely to cause confusion. Consequently, none of the grounds of opposition were made out.
The delegate ordered that the opposition be dismissed and that the trade mark application proceed to registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
0
Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Pty Ltd
[2004] FCAFC 196
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663