Re: Opposition by Jagen Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Index Fund Advisors Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 1067649 (class 36) – SCIENTIA CAPITAL – in the name of...
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 30
•28 February 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Jagen Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by Index Fund Advisors Pty Ltd to remove trade mark number 1067649 (class 36) – SCIENTIA CAPITAL – in the name of... [2020] ATMO 30
[2020] ATMO 30
28 February 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) by Jagen Pty Ltd (the opponent) seeking the removal of trade mark number 1067649, SCIENTIA CAPITAL, from the Register. The trade mark was registered in class 36 and was in the name of Index Fund Advisors Pty Ltd. The opponent alleged that the trade mark had not been used by the registered owner or an authorised user.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the registered owner had demonstrated sufficient use of the trade mark in Australia. The Court was required to determine if the evidence presented by the registered owner established that the trade mark had been used in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered, or if there was a genuine intention to use it.
The Court found that the evidence of use provided by the registered owner was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not required to exercise its discretion to allow the trade mark to remain on the Register. The Court ordered that trade mark number 1067649 be removed from the Register.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the registered owner had demonstrated sufficient use of the trade mark in Australia. The Court was required to determine if the evidence presented by the registered owner established that the trade mark had been used in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered, or if there was a genuine intention to use it.
The Court found that the evidence of use provided by the registered owner was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not required to exercise its discretion to allow the trade mark to remain on the Register. The Court ordered that trade mark number 1067649 be removed from the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261
Courier Luggage Pty Ltd v Wenger SA Inc
[2015] ATMO 10
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261