Re: Opposition by Mirage Granito Ceramico SpA to registration of trade mark application number 1851067 (class 19) - CON-TACT in the name of Kittrich Corporation
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 105
•16 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Mirage Granito Ceramico SpA to registration of trade mark application number 1851067 (class 19) - CON-TACT in the name of Kittrich Corporation [2020] ATMO 105
[2020] ATMO 105
16 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mirage Granito Ceramico SpA opposed the registration of the trade mark application number 1851067, CON-TACT, in class 19, filed by Kittrich Corporation. The opposition was heard by Jock McDonagh.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to any earlier trade marks under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), and whether the trade mark was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of other persons under section 59 of the Act.
The court found that the grounds of opposition were not established. In relation to section 44, the court determined that there was no deceptive similarity between the applied-for mark and any cited earlier marks. Regarding section 59, the court concluded that the applicant's mark was not inherently deceptive or misleading and was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods. Consequently, the opposition failed.
The trade mark application was therefore permitted to proceed to registration.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to any earlier trade marks under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), and whether the trade mark was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of other persons under section 59 of the Act.
The court found that the grounds of opposition were not established. In relation to section 44, the court determined that there was no deceptive similarity between the applied-for mark and any cited earlier marks. Regarding section 59, the court concluded that the applicant's mark was not inherently deceptive or misleading and was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods. Consequently, the opposition failed.
The trade mark application was therefore permitted to proceed to registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1