Re: Opposition by Swatch AG (Swatch SA) (Swatch Ltd.) to extension of protection to Australia of International Registration Designating Australia 1210085 (9) Think Different (Australian Trade Mark Application No...
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 105
•8 July 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Swatch AG (Swatch SA) (Swatch Ltd.) to extension of protection to Australia of International Registration Designating Australia 1210085 (9) Think Different (Australian Trade Mark Application No... [2019] ATMO 105
[2019] ATMO 105
8 July 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Swatch AG (the Opponent) to the extension of protection to Australia of International Registration Designating Australia 1210085, which designated the trade mark "Think Different" (the IRDA). The Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose and a Statement of Grounds and Particulars, raising grounds under sections 41, 44, 59, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The Holder filed a Notice of Intention to Defend. Evidence was filed by both parties, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before Nicholas Smith, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether any of the grounds of opposition raised by the Opponent had been established, and consequently, whether to refuse protection for the IRDA in its entirety or to extend protection in respect of some or all of the goods or services listed, with or without conditions. The delegate was required to make a decision having regard to the extent to which any ground of opposition was established.
The delegate considered the written record, including evidence and submissions, as well as oral submissions made at the hearing. The delegate ultimately found that the Opponent had not established the grounds on which the IRDA was opposed. Accordingly, the delegate decided to extend protection to the IRDA. The delegate also ordered that costs follow the event, awarding costs against the Opponent in favour of the Holder. Protection was to proceed one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether any of the grounds of opposition raised by the Opponent had been established, and consequently, whether to refuse protection for the IRDA in its entirety or to extend protection in respect of some or all of the goods or services listed, with or without conditions. The delegate was required to make a decision having regard to the extent to which any ground of opposition was established.
The delegate considered the written record, including evidence and submissions, as well as oral submissions made at the hearing. The delegate ultimately found that the Opponent had not established the grounds on which the IRDA was opposed. Accordingly, the delegate decided to extend protection to the IRDA. The delegate also ordered that costs follow the event, awarding costs against the Opponent in favour of the Holder. Protection was to proceed one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
26
Statutory Material Cited
0
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