Re Oppositions by Murley Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark applications 1901398 (43) the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar and 1901405 (43) the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar (figurative) both in the name of The Craft & Co Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 2
•13 January 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Oppositions by Murley Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark applications 1901398 (43) the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar and 1901405 (43) the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar (figurative) both in the name of The Craft & Co Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 2
[2020] ATMO 2
13 January 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned oppositions by Murley Pty Ltd to two trade mark applications filed by The Craft & Co Pty Ltd, specifically application number 1901398 for the mark "the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar" and application number 1901405 for the figurative mark "the Craft & Co Kitchen-Bar". The oppositions were heard by Robert Wilson, acting as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Murley Pty Ltd, including those under sections 41, 42(b), 43, 44, 58, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. The delegate was required to determine if the proposed trade marks should be refused registration or allowed to proceed, and to consider the matter of costs.
The delegate found that Murley Pty Ltd had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it had nominated. The delegate noted that Murley Pty Ltd had been self-represented for a significant period and had not responded to correspondence from IP Australia, nor had it appeared at the scheduled hearing or filed written submissions. Consequently, the delegate ordered that the trade mark applications could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. Regarding costs, the delegate departed from the usual practice of discounting costs for a second opposition, finding that the opponent's conduct, including the nomination of numerous grounds that were considered hopeless, had unreasonably increased the applicant's costs and the Registrar's time. Therefore, the delegate awarded costs in favour of the applicant, taking into account the opponent's conduct.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition raised by Murley Pty Ltd, including those under sections 41, 42(b), 43, 44, 58, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), had been established. The delegate was required to determine if the proposed trade marks should be refused registration or allowed to proceed, and to consider the matter of costs.
The delegate found that Murley Pty Ltd had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it had nominated. The delegate noted that Murley Pty Ltd had been self-represented for a significant period and had not responded to correspondence from IP Australia, nor had it appeared at the scheduled hearing or filed written submissions. Consequently, the delegate ordered that the trade mark applications could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. Regarding costs, the delegate departed from the usual practice of discounting costs for a second opposition, finding that the opponent's conduct, including the nomination of numerous grounds that were considered hopeless, had unreasonably increased the applicant's costs and the Registrar's time. Therefore, the delegate awarded costs in favour of the applicant, taking into account the opponent's conduct.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1964] HCA 55