Re: Opposition by LG Electronics Inc. to registration of trade mark application no. 1804317 (9) - Samsung Qled in the name of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 114
•29 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by LG Electronics Inc. to registration of trade mark application no. 1804317 (9) - Samsung Qled in the name of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd [2020] ATMO 114
[2020] ATMO 114
29 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by LG Electronics Inc. (the Opponent) to the registration of trade mark application no. 1804317 (9) for the mark "Samsung Qled" in the name of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (the Applicant). The Opponent filed a Statement of Grounds and Particulars alleging opposition under sections 59 and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend. The proceedings were decided by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks based on the written record, as the Opponent elected to proceed without a hearing.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 59 (lack of intention to use the mark) and section 62A (bad faith), were established. The Opponent contended that the Applicant's decision to apply for registration was made in bad faith, alleging a deliberate attempt to take over a mark owned by Pomerol Wine Industry Co. Ltd. The Opponent's evidence included a declaration detailing a prior use of a "McLaren New Boss" mark, which was licensed to Pomerol, and contracts for the supply of wine bearing this mark by the Applicant's company.
The delegate considered the evidence presented by both parties. The Opponent's case relied on establishing that the Applicant lacked the requisite intention to use the mark at the time of filing, or that the application was made in bad faith. However, the delegate found that the Opponent had failed to establish a prima facie case on either ground. Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Applicant lacked the necessary intention to use the mark, nor did it sufficiently establish bad faith in the context of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*.
Consequently, the delegate determined that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition. Trade mark application no. 1804317 was directed to proceed to registration, subject to any appeal. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent, following the general rule that costs follow the event.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under section 59 (lack of intention to use the mark) and section 62A (bad faith), were established. The Opponent contended that the Applicant's decision to apply for registration was made in bad faith, alleging a deliberate attempt to take over a mark owned by Pomerol Wine Industry Co. Ltd. The Opponent's evidence included a declaration detailing a prior use of a "McLaren New Boss" mark, which was licensed to Pomerol, and contracts for the supply of wine bearing this mark by the Applicant's company.
The delegate considered the evidence presented by both parties. The Opponent's case relied on establishing that the Applicant lacked the requisite intention to use the mark at the time of filing, or that the application was made in bad faith. However, the delegate found that the Opponent had failed to establish a prima facie case on either ground. Specifically, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Applicant lacked the necessary intention to use the mark, nor did it sufficiently establish bad faith in the context of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*.
Consequently, the delegate determined that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition. Trade mark application no. 1804317 was directed to proceed to registration, subject to any appeal. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent, following the general rule that costs follow the event.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Intention
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
1
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020