Re: Opposition by Warrior Sports, Inc. to registration of trade mark applications 1761463 (35) - Warrior and 1764165 (25) - Warrior - each in the name of Warrior Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 75
•5 May 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Opposition by Warrior Sports, Inc. to registration of trade mark applications 1761463 (35) - Warrior and 1764165 (25) - Warrior - each in the name of Warrior Australia Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 75
[2020] ATMO 75
5 May 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned opposition proceedings before the Australian Trade Marks Office, initiated by Warrior Sports, Inc. against two trade mark applications filed by Warrior Australia Pty Ltd. The applications sought registration for the mark "Warrior" in classes 35 and 25. Warrior Sports, Inc. opposed the registration on grounds including section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically that raised under section 44 of the Act, had been established. Section 44 concerns the registration of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark for which a registration has been sought or obtained.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 55(1)(a) of the Act, the Hearing Officer decided to refuse the registration of both trade mark applications. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant, Warrior Australia Pty Ltd, in accordance with the usual practice and section 221 of the Act.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically that raised under section 44 of the Act, had been established. Section 44 concerns the registration of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark for which a registration has been sought or obtained.
The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 55(1)(a) of the Act, the Hearing Officer decided to refuse the registration of both trade mark applications. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicant, Warrior Australia Pty Ltd, in accordance with the usual practice and section 221 of the Act.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0