Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc (No. 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc (No. 2)[2018] FCA 963

Appeal from: Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Optum, Inc [2016] ATMO 11
File number(s): NSD 286 of 2016
Judge(s): DAVIES J
Date of judgment: 26 June 2018
Catchwords: TRADE MARKS – Non-use of trade mark in respect of services – application for removal of trade mark in respect of those services for non-use – whether the Court should exercise its discretion under s 101(3) of the Trade Marks Act not to remove trade mark
TRADE MARKS – whether scope of services should be narrowed – use of trade mark in respect of services established
COSTS – Court’s discretion to award costs – whether costs should be apportioned and if so, in what amount
Legislation:  Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases cited:  Austin, Nichols & Co Inc. v Lodestar Anstalt (2012) 202 FCR 490
Hills Industries Limited v Bitek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 94
Hughes v Western Australia Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] FCA 382
Murray Goulburn Co-op Corporation v New South Wales Dairy Corporation (1990) 17 IPR 269
Shord v Commissioner of Taxation (No. 2) [2018] FCAFC 27
Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc [2018] FCA 575
Wu v Li [2015] FCAFC 109
Date of hearing: 18-21 September 2017
Date of last submissions: 21 June 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Trade Marks
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Respondent: Mr C Dimitriadis SC with Mr H Bevan
Solicitor for the Appellant and Cross-Respondent: Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Respondent and Cross-Claimant: Mr M Darke SC with Mr D Larish
Solicitor for the Respondent and Cross-Claimant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

ORDERS

NSD 286 of 2016
BETWEEN:

SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED

Appellant

AND:

OPTUM INC

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

OPTUM INC

Cross-Claimant

AND:

SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED

Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

DAVIES J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appeal be dismissed.

2.The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the Appeal, as agreed or taxed.

3.Pursuant to s 101(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), trade mark registration numbers 558811 and 578775 be removed from class 35 of the Register only insofar as each of those registrations is in respect of "management consulting in this class; public relations in this class".

4.The Cross-Claim otherwise be dismissed.

5.The Cross-Respondent pay 85% of the Cross-Claimant's costs of the Cross-Claim, as agreed or taxed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DAVIES J:

  1. On 1 May 2018 I delivered judgment in this proceeding: Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc [2018] FCA 575. The issues determined by the Court included a cross-claim by Optum for orders that Singtel’s OPTUS mark be removed from the register pursuant to s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Act”) for non-use in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc (No. 2) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] FCA 963
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Singtel Optus Pty Limited sought the removal of two trade mark registrations held by Optum Inc on the basis that the trade marks were not being used in relation to certain services. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which also needed to determine whether the scope of the services covered by the trade marks should be narrowed and whether costs should be apportioned between the parties. The court considered the criteria for removing trade marks for non-use under section 101(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and whether the use of the trade marks in relation to certain services had been established. The court found that while some of the services for which the trade marks were registered were not being used, the trade marks were being used in relation to other services. The court exercised its discretion to remove the registrations only in respect of the services where non-use had been established. In relation to costs, the court found that the Cross-Respondent should pay 85% of the Cross-Claimant's costs of the Cross-Claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal. The Cross-Respondent was ordered to pay 85% of the Cross-Claimant's costs of the Cross-Claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal be dismissed.

2. The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the Appeal, as agreed or taxed.

3. Pursuant to s 101(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), trade mark registration numbers 558811 and 578775 be removed from class 35 of the Register only insofar as each of those registrations is in respect of "management consulting in this class; public relations in this class".

4. The Cross-Claim otherwise be dismissed.

5. The Cross-Respondent pay 85% of the Cross-Claimant's costs of the Cross-Claim, as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.