Re: Opposition by PetLab Group Limited to registration of trade mark application number 2339861 (classes 3, 5, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27) The PAWLAB in the name of Lazbro Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2024] ATMO 170
•10 September 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by PetLab Group Limited to registration of trade mark application number 2339861 (classes 3, 5, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27) The PAWLAB in the name of Lazbro Pty Ltd [2024] ATMO 170
[2024] ATMO 170
10 September 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition by PetLab Group Limited to the registration of the trade mark application number 2339861, "PAWLAB", in the name of Lazbro Pty Ltd, across classes 3, 5, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 27. The opposition was heard by Deputy Registrar Anne Makrigiorgos of the Trade Marks Office.
The primary legal issue before the Deputy Registrar was whether the applicant's trade mark "PAWLAB" was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "PETLAB", within the meaning of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as the goods and services for which registration was sought and the goods and services covered by the opponent's registration.
The Deputy Registrar found that the marks "PAWLAB" and "PETLAB" were deceptively similar. This conclusion was reached by considering the common elements of the marks, the overall impression they created, and the likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Deputy Registrar noted that both marks shared the common suffix "LAB" and that the initial syllables "PAW" and "PET" were phonetically similar and conceptually related to the pet industry. Given the broad range of goods and services covered by both the application and the opponent's registration, the Deputy Registrar determined that there was a real chance that consumers would be confused into believing that the goods or services offered under the "PAWLAB" mark originated from, or were in some way connected with, the owner of the "PETLAB" mark.
The opposition was therefore successful, and the trade mark application number 2339861 was refused registration.
The primary legal issue before the Deputy Registrar was whether the applicant's trade mark "PAWLAB" was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "PETLAB", within the meaning of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as the goods and services for which registration was sought and the goods and services covered by the opponent's registration.
The Deputy Registrar found that the marks "PAWLAB" and "PETLAB" were deceptively similar. This conclusion was reached by considering the common elements of the marks, the overall impression they created, and the likelihood of confusion among consumers. The Deputy Registrar noted that both marks shared the common suffix "LAB" and that the initial syllables "PAW" and "PET" were phonetically similar and conceptually related to the pet industry. Given the broad range of goods and services covered by both the application and the opponent's registration, the Deputy Registrar determined that there was a real chance that consumers would be confused into believing that the goods or services offered under the "PAWLAB" mark originated from, or were in some way connected with, the owner of the "PETLAB" mark.
The opposition was therefore successful, and the trade mark application number 2339861 was refused registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020