So Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust v Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko
Case
•
[2023] ATMO 146
•29 September 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
So Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust v Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko [2023] ATMO 146
[2023] ATMO 146
29 September 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter came before the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning an application by So Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust (the Opponent) for an extension of time to file evidence in support of its opposition to a trade mark application. The Opponent sought this extension under regulation 5.15 of the *Trade Marks Regulations 1995* (Cth).
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the Opponent had established grounds for an extension of time under regulation 5.15(2). Specifically, the Registrar had to determine if the Opponent had made all reasonable efforts to comply with filing requirements and, despite acting promptly and diligently, was unable to file its evidence, or alternatively, if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the extension. The onus was on the Opponent to satisfy the Registrar on either of these grounds.
The Registrar considered the Opponent's submissions, which attributed delays to the nature of its business as a small to medium enterprise reliant on key personnel. However, the Registrar found that the Opponent had not satisfied the criteria for an extension of time under either limb of regulation 5.15(2). The circumstances presented, including the absence of key personnel, were not considered to be exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.
The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the Opponent had established grounds for an extension of time under regulation 5.15(2). Specifically, the Registrar had to determine if the Opponent had made all reasonable efforts to comply with filing requirements and, despite acting promptly and diligently, was unable to file its evidence, or alternatively, if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the extension. The onus was on the Opponent to satisfy the Registrar on either of these grounds.
The Registrar considered the Opponent's submissions, which attributed delays to the nature of its business as a small to medium enterprise reliant on key personnel. However, the Registrar found that the Opponent had not satisfied the criteria for an extension of time under either limb of regulation 5.15(2). The circumstances presented, including the absence of key personnel, were not considered to be exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
1