Re: Opposition by Doreen Fielding to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Sareen Holdings Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 1208086 (classes 19 and 20) - Sareen Stone (stylised) in..
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 127
•29 July 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Doreen Fielding to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Sareen Holdings Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 1208086 (classes 19 and 20) - Sareen Stone (stylised) in.. [2020] ATMO 127
[2020] ATMO 127
29 July 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Doreen Fielding to remove trade mark number 1208086, registered as "Sareen Stone" (stylised) in classes 19 and 20, from the Register of Trade Marks. The application for removal was brought under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer, Louise Tuohy, considered the arguments presented by both parties.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the trade mark should be removed from the Register on the grounds that the removal opponent, Ms. Fielding, or an authorised user, had not demonstrated use of the trade mark. Specifically, the hearing officer had to determine if the conditions under subsection 92(4)(b) of the Act were met, which would necessitate the removal of the trade mark.
In her reasoning, the hearing officer found that the evidence presented by the applicant for removal did not establish sufficient use of the trade mark by either the registered owner or an authorised user. Consequently, the hearing officer concluded that the discretion to allow the trade mark to remain on the Register could not be exercised in favour of the registered owner. The hearing officer ordered that the trade mark be removed from the Register.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the trade mark should be removed from the Register on the grounds that the removal opponent, Ms. Fielding, or an authorised user, had not demonstrated use of the trade mark. Specifically, the hearing officer had to determine if the conditions under subsection 92(4)(b) of the Act were met, which would necessitate the removal of the trade mark.
In her reasoning, the hearing officer found that the evidence presented by the applicant for removal did not establish sufficient use of the trade mark by either the registered owner or an authorised user. Consequently, the hearing officer concluded that the discretion to allow the trade mark to remain on the Register could not be exercised in favour of the registered owner. The hearing officer ordered that the trade mark be removed from the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261