Re: Opposition by Promaz Automotive Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1869033 (classes 7 and 12) - Billet Pro (Word) in the name of Billet Inco Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 152
•8 September 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Promaz Automotive Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1869033 (classes 7 and 12) - Billet Pro (Word) in the name of Billet Inco Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 152
[2020] ATMO 152
8 September 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Promaz Automotive Pty Ltd to the registration of the trade mark application number 1869033, comprising the word "Billet Pro", in classes 7 and 12, filed by Billet Inco Pty Ltd. The hearing was conducted by Kate Doherty, Hearing Officer.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, pursued under sections 43, 58, 59, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. Specifically, the Hearing Officer considered whether there was an intention to use the trade mark, as relevant to section 59.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. In particular, the Hearing Officer was unable to construe that there was no intention to use the trade mark, and therefore the section 59 ground was not established. Consequently, the Hearing Officer determined that trade mark application number 1869033 would proceed to registration pursuant to section 55(1) of the Act.
Given that no evidence had been filed in the proceedings, the Hearing Officer directed no order as to costs, as there was nothing before her to demonstrate that costs had been incurred.
The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the grounds of opposition, pursued under sections 43, 58, 59, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. Specifically, the Hearing Officer considered whether there was an intention to use the trade mark, as relevant to section 59.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. In particular, the Hearing Officer was unable to construe that there was no intention to use the trade mark, and therefore the section 59 ground was not established. Consequently, the Hearing Officer determined that trade mark application number 1869033 would proceed to registration pursuant to section 55(1) of the Act.
Given that no evidence had been filed in the proceedings, the Hearing Officer directed no order as to costs, as there was nothing before her to demonstrate that costs had been incurred.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Stingray Surf Co Pty Ltd v Lister
[1997] ATMO 3
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd
[1968] HCA 50
Pom Wonderful LLC v Trialia Foods Australia Pty Limited
[2009] ATMO 93