Sapient Australia Pty Ltd and Sapient Corporation v SAP Aktiengesellschaft
Case
•
[2002] ATMO 31
•8 April 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sapient Australia Pty Ltd and Sapient Corporation v SAP Aktiengesellschaft [2002] ATMO 31
[2002] ATMO 31
8 April 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sapient Australia Pty Ltd and Sapient Corporation (the applicants) sought to register trademarks in various classes. SAP Aktiengesellschaft (the opponent) opposed the registration. The matter came before the court for determination.
The court was required to determine whether the opponent had established grounds for opposing the registration of the applicants' trademarks. Specifically, the court considered whether the opponent had used its own trademarks in relation to goods and services that overlapped with those sought by the applicants.
The court found that the opponent had indeed used its trademarks in relation to goods and services across all the classes for which the applicants sought registration. This included printed material, education services, advisory services, and articles of clothing. This established use by the opponent was a key factor in the court's consideration of the opposition.
The court was required to determine whether the opponent had established grounds for opposing the registration of the applicants' trademarks. Specifically, the court considered whether the opponent had used its own trademarks in relation to goods and services that overlapped with those sought by the applicants.
The court found that the opponent had indeed used its trademarks in relation to goods and services across all the classes for which the applicants sought registration. This included printed material, education services, advisory services, and articles of clothing. This established use by the opponent was a key factor in the court's consideration of the opposition.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
FremantleMedia Limited and 19 TV Limited v Michael Lohmann [2010] ATMO 44
Cases Citing This Decision
10
YogaGlo, Inc v Gabrielle Brown
[2015] ATMO 103
Watches of Switzerland Pty Ltd v Mappin & Webb Limited
[2015] ATMO 23
Best & Less Pty Ltd v Consolidated Artists BV
[2013] ATMO 56
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd
[1937] HCA 51