Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd. v Mitsubishi Jidosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
Case
•
[2024] ATMO 121
•2 July 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd. v Mitsubishi Jidosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha [2024] ATMO 121
[2024] ATMO 121
2 July 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd. (the applicant) sought the removal of trade mark registration 793018 from the Register, which was registered in the name of Mitsubishi Jidosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (the opponent). The application for removal was made under section 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the opponent had demonstrated the use of the trade mark for the registered goods during the relevant period, as required to resist the application for removal. This involved considering the evidence of use provided by the opponent and whether it discharged the onus placed upon it under section 100(3)(a) of the Act.
The delegate found that the evidence presented by the opponent, specifically the "Principe declaration," sufficiently demonstrated the use of the trade mark for the registered goods within the relevant period. Consequently, the opponent had satisfied its onus under section 100(3)(a) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. The delegate therefore decided that the opposition to the removal application was established and that the trade mark should remain on the Register. The delegate ordered that trade mark registration 793018 not be removed from the Register for any of the goods for which it was registered and awarded costs to the opponent.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the opponent had demonstrated the use of the trade mark for the registered goods during the relevant period, as required to resist the application for removal. This involved considering the evidence of use provided by the opponent and whether it discharged the onus placed upon it under section 100(3)(a) of the Act.
The delegate found that the evidence presented by the opponent, specifically the "Principe declaration," sufficiently demonstrated the use of the trade mark for the registered goods within the relevant period. Consequently, the opponent had satisfied its onus under section 100(3)(a) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. The delegate therefore decided that the opposition to the removal application was established and that the trade mark should remain on the Register. The delegate ordered that trade mark registration 793018 not be removed from the Register for any of the goods for which it was registered and awarded costs to the opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd. v Mitsubishi Jidosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha [2024] ATMO 121
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
6
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261