Re: Opposition by Flow Systems Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1828633 (class 4) - Flow Power in the name of Progressive Green Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 3
•13 January 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Flow Systems Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1828633 (class 4) - Flow Power in the name of Progressive Green Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 3
[2020] ATMO 3
13 January 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Flow Systems Pty Ltd (the Opponent) to the registration of the trade mark application number 1828633, "Flow Power," in Class 4, filed by Progressive Green Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The opposition was brought under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), with grounds including ss 58, 59, 60, and 42(b) of the Act. The decision was made by M. Cooper, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds for opposing the registration of the Applicant's trade mark. Specifically, the Opponent alleged that the use of "Flow Power" in relation to the goods and services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, given the Opponent's alleged use of its own marks, "FLOW" and "FLOW SYSTEMS," in relation to water and energy utility services, and its claimed substantial reputation in these marks.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it nominated. The evidence presented by the Opponent, including declarations and exhibited documents, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant's trade mark would likely deceive or cause confusion. The Applicant, a specialist electricity retailer, had commenced offering services under the "Flow Power" trade mark in March 2017, and had a history of trading in the energy sector. The Opponent's evidence regarding its own use of marks and reputation was not considered sufficient to meet the threshold for opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Opponent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, following the general rule that costs follow the event, as the Opponent had failed to establish any ground of opposition. Registration was to occur one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds for opposing the registration of the Applicant's trade mark. Specifically, the Opponent alleged that the use of "Flow Power" in relation to the goods and services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, given the Opponent's alleged use of its own marks, "FLOW" and "FLOW SYSTEMS," in relation to water and energy utility services, and its claimed substantial reputation in these marks.
The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it nominated. The evidence presented by the Opponent, including declarations and exhibited documents, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant's trade mark would likely deceive or cause confusion. The Applicant, a specialist electricity retailer, had commenced offering services under the "Flow Power" trade mark in March 2017, and had a history of trading in the energy sector. The Opponent's evidence regarding its own use of marks and reputation was not considered sufficient to meet the threshold for opposition.
Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration. The Opponent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, following the general rule that costs follow the event, as the Opponent had failed to establish any ground of opposition. Registration was to occur 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
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020