Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited
Case
•
[2011] FCA 300
•31 March 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited [2011] FCA 300
[2011] FCA 300
31 March 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Suyen Corporation appealed against a decision made by the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks Office, which had rejected its application for registration of a trade mark. The trade mark in question, which was for the word "Aussie" in relation to clothing, including boots, shoes, and slippers, under class 25, had been opposed by Americana International Limited. Following the withdrawal of the opposition, the parties proposed consent orders to allow the appeal and proceed with the registration of the trade mark.
The court was required to decide whether it could make the proposed consent orders, given that the opposition had been withdrawn and the Registrar had no objection to the draft orders. The legal issues included whether the court could allow an appeal and permit the registration of a trade mark when the opposition had been withdrawn and the Registrar had no objection to the decision being set aside.
The court referred to previous cases such as Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Effem Foods Pty Ltd and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Aldi Stores (a limited partnership) to support its decision. The court held that where the opponent has withdrawn, the Registrar has no objection to the draft orders, and there is no evidence before the court capable of supporting any actual or potential ground of opposition, there is no basis on which the court can uphold the opposition. The statutory scheme under the Trade Marks Act 1990 (Cth) also supported the court's decision, as section 68(1) of the Act provides that the Registrar must register a trade mark if the opposition has been withdrawn.
The court allowed the appeal from the decision of the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks Office, set aside the decision, and ordered that the trade mark application number 989448 proceed to registration. The parties' proposed consent orders were approved by the court, and the Registrar had no objection to the decision being set aside so that the application may proceed to registration.
The court was required to decide whether it could make the proposed consent orders, given that the opposition had been withdrawn and the Registrar had no objection to the draft orders. The legal issues included whether the court could allow an appeal and permit the registration of a trade mark when the opposition had been withdrawn and the Registrar had no objection to the decision being set aside.
The court referred to previous cases such as Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Effem Foods Pty Ltd and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Aldi Stores (a limited partnership) to support its decision. The court held that where the opponent has withdrawn, the Registrar has no objection to the draft orders, and there is no evidence before the court capable of supporting any actual or potential ground of opposition, there is no basis on which the court can uphold the opposition. The statutory scheme under the Trade Marks Act 1990 (Cth) also supported the court's decision, as section 68(1) of the Act provides that the Registrar must register a trade mark if the opposition has been withdrawn.
The court allowed the appeal from the decision of the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks Office, set aside the decision, and ordered that the trade mark application number 989448 proceed to registration. The parties' proposed consent orders were approved by the court, and the Registrar had no objection to the decision being set aside so that the application may proceed to registration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Trade Marks
-
Appeal
-
Registrar of Trade Marks
-
Consent Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Gen-Probe Incorporated v Beckman Coulter, Inc [2022] FCA 194
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Mindstore International Limited v Biofeedback International Pty Ltd and Jeremy Fitzpatrick
[2013] ATMO 45
Marquis Macadamias Ltd v Mars Australia Pty Ltd
[2022] FCA 207
Gen-Probe Incorporated v Beckman Coulter, Inc
[2022] FCA 194
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
European Community v Commissioner of Patents
[2006] FCA 706