Stormwater360 Group Limited v IES Stormwater Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 197
•10 November 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stormwater360 Group Limited v IES Stormwater Pty Ltd [2022] ATMO 197
[2022] ATMO 197
10 November 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stormwater360 Group Limited (the applicant) sought the removal of the trade mark "IES STORMTECH" from the Register of Trade Marks under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) from IES Stormwater Pty Ltd (the respondent). The applicant alleged that the respondent had not used the trade mark in Australia.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had made genuine use of the trade mark "IES STORMTECH" in Australia in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered. A secondary issue arose concerning whether any use of the trade mark by the applicant, which was a former distributor of the respondent's products, constituted authorised use by the respondent.
The Court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate genuine use of the trade mark in Australia. While the applicant had used the trade mark during its distributorship, this use was not shown to be authorised by the respondent for the purposes of section 92(4) of the Act. The Court concluded that the respondent had not established that it or an authorised user had used the trade mark in good faith in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion under section 92 to remove the trade mark from the Register.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had made genuine use of the trade mark "IES STORMTECH" in Australia in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered. A secondary issue arose concerning whether any use of the trade mark by the applicant, which was a former distributor of the respondent's products, constituted authorised use by the respondent.
The Court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate genuine use of the trade mark in Australia. While the applicant had used the trade mark during its distributorship, this use was not shown to be authorised by the respondent for the purposes of section 92(4) of the Act. The Court concluded that the respondent had not established that it or an authorised user had used the trade mark in good faith in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion under section 92 to remove the trade mark from the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
4
Aussie Water Coolers Pty Ltd v Lee Bradley
[2020] ATMO 23
Taxiprop Pty Ltd v Neutron Holdings Inc
[2020] FCA 1565
Woolly Bull Enterprises Pty Ltd v Reynolds
[2001] FCA 261