Re: Opposition by Coffee Republic Australia Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17a.33 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 of trade mark number 1868244 (International Registration number 1361779)
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 31
•28 February 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Coffee Republic Australia Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17a.33 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 of trade mark number 1868244 (International Registration number 1361779) [2020] ATMO 31
[2020] ATMO 31
28 February 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Coffee Republic Australia Pty Ltd to the extension of protection of trade mark number 1868244 (International Registration number 1361779) to Australia. The opposition was brought under regulation 17A.33 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer was Adrian Richards.
The primary legal issues before the hearing officer were whether the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44(1) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) based on a prior registered trade mark, and whether the opponent could establish prior and continuous use of its trade mark under section 44(4) of the Act. The opponent also sought to rely on evidence filed late in the proceedings.
The hearing officer found that the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44(1) of the Act, as it held a prior registered trade mark for the same mark for identical goods. However, the hearing officer determined that the opponent had failed to establish prior and continuous use of its trade mark under section 44(4) of the Act, as the evidence did not demonstrate use of the mark in Australia prior to the filing date of the international registration. The request for consideration of late-filed evidence was also refused. Consequently, the extension of protection for the trade mark was refused.
The primary legal issues before the hearing officer were whether the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44(1) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) based on a prior registered trade mark, and whether the opponent could establish prior and continuous use of its trade mark under section 44(4) of the Act. The opponent also sought to rely on evidence filed late in the proceedings.
The hearing officer found that the opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44(1) of the Act, as it held a prior registered trade mark for the same mark for identical goods. However, the hearing officer determined that the opponent had failed to establish prior and continuous use of its trade mark under section 44(4) of the Act, as the evidence did not demonstrate use of the mark in Australia prior to the filing date of the international registration. The request for consideration of late-filed evidence was also refused. Consequently, the extension of protection for the trade mark was refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese
[2000] FCA 1141
Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese
[2000] FCA 1141
Fed Square Pty Ltd v Federation IP Pty Ltd
[2015] ATMO 42