Shenzhen Taiyang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v weijian chen
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 108
•6 June 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shenzhen Taiyang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v weijian chen [2025] ATMO 108
[2025] ATMO 108
6 June 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns an opposition by Shenzhen Taiyang Network Technology Co., Ltd. (the Opponent) against an application by Weijian Chen (the Applicant) to register a trade mark. The dispute centred on the registrability of the Applicant's trade mark for certain goods.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Applicant's trade mark should be registered, specifically in light of a ground of opposition under section 58 of the relevant Act. The Hearing Officer was required to determine if this ground of opposition had been established for the goods specified in the application.
The Hearing Officer found that the section 58 ground of opposition was successful in respect of the goods 'artists’ paint brushes; brushes for the application of paints, paint brushes and paint brushes for applying treatments to timber'. Applying the principle that if an application fails in one respect, it fails as a whole, and noting that the remaining goods were de minimis, the Hearing Officer determined it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to allow the Applicant to amend the application to remove the contested goods. Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark. The Opponent was awarded costs against the Applicant.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Applicant's trade mark should be registered, specifically in light of a ground of opposition under section 58 of the relevant Act. The Hearing Officer was required to determine if this ground of opposition had been established for the goods specified in the application.
The Hearing Officer found that the section 58 ground of opposition was successful in respect of the goods 'artists’ paint brushes; brushes for the application of paints, paint brushes and paint brushes for applying treatments to timber'. Applying the principle that if an application fails in one respect, it fails as a whole, and noting that the remaining goods were de minimis, the Hearing Officer determined it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to allow the Applicant to amend the application to remove the contested goods. Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark. The Opponent was awarded costs against the Applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd
[2017] FCAFC 56
PB Foods Ltd v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd
[1999] FCA 1602
Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd
[2017] FCAFC 83