TRADE MARKS ACT 1995
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Opposition by Red Bull GmbH to registration of trade mark application number 2231913 (class 5) - COW & BULL (composite) - in the name of Leonard Grout
Delegate: | Benjamin Goldsworthy |
Representation: | Opponent: Lance Scott of Gestalt Law Pty Ltd Applicant: Anthony Place of Patentable |
Decision: | 2024 ATMO 97 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – grounds of opposition under ss 42(b), 44, 60 and 62A pressed – s 44 ground of opposition established – trade mark refused. |
Background
On 27 November 2021 an application to register a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)[1] was made in the name of Leonard Grout (‘Applicant’), the details of which I extract below:
Trade mark number: 2231913
Trade mark:
(‘Trade Mark’)
Goods: Class 5: Vitamin Supplements for Human Consumption[2]
[1] Unless specified otherwise, a reference in these reasons to a section is a reference to such in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and a reference to a regulation is a reference to such in the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth).
[2] I note that the specification of goods was subsequently amended; see paragraphs [4] and [6].
The Trade Mark was examined, and acceptance was advertised 28 April 2022. On 28 June 2022, Red Bull GmbH (‘Opponent’) filed its Notice of Intention to Oppose. On 27 July 2022, the Opponent filed its Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’). On 26 August 2022 the Applicant filed its Notice of Intention to Defend.
On 29 November 2022, the Opponent filed its Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) consisting of:
- a declaration of Jocelyn Wu, paralegal at the Opponent’s law firm Gestalt Law Pty Ltd, dated 29 November 2022, with Annexures JW-1 to JW-5 (‘Wu-1’);
- a declaration of Chris Feather, Founder and Manager of a business that trades as 98 Gym, dated 29 November 2022, with Annexure CF-1 (‘Feather’); and
- a declaration of Jennifer A Powers, Intellectual Property Counsel at the Opponent, dated 17 November 2022, with Annexures 1 to 19 (‘Powers-1’).
On 14 December 2022 the Applicant requested an amendment to the application to add the following endorsement and amend the goods as follows (bold text indicating additional words added to the specification of goods) (‘Amendments’):
Endorsement: The following disclaimer has been requested under subsection 74(1): The trade mark background consists of gradients or transitions, and is otherwise plain or clear, as illustrated in the representation on the application.
It is a condition of registration that, in use, the bovine devices and text elements contained within the trade mark are not rendered in RED or YELLOW (‘Endorsement’).
Goods: Class 5: Vitamin Supplements for Human Consumption; the aforementioned vitamin supplements being in the form of capsules, tablets and freeze-dried powders; the aforementioned vitamin supplements including an ingredient that is sourced from a bovine organ and/or gland (‘Applicant’s Goods’)
On 15 December 2022 the Applicant filed its Evidence in Answer…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Red Bull GmbH v Leonard Grout and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] ATMO 97
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Registrar was whether to register the trade mark, having regard to the grounds of opposition. Specifically, the Registrar had to determine if any of the grounds on which the application was opposed had been established.
The Registrar reasoned that the Opponent had established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the relevant legislation. Consequently, the Registrar decided to refuse the registration of the trade mark. The Registrar also directed that if a notice of appeal was served, registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Registrar awarded costs against the Applicant in favour of the Opponent, applying the general principle that costs follow the event.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.