The Gillette Company v Sichuan Huajing Guomao Industrial Co., Ltd
Case
•
[2007] ATMO 15
•10 April 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Gillette Company v Sichuan Huajing Guomao Industrial Co., Ltd [2007] ATMO 15
[2007] ATMO 15
10 April 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition proceeding before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The opponent, The Gillette Company, relied on its registered trade marks DURACELL, DURA4X, and DURA2X to oppose the international registration application (IRDA) of Sichuan Huajing Guomao Industrial Co., Ltd. The applicant did not appear at the hearing and filed no written submissions.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. Section 44 concerns the use or registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks, while section 60 addresses opposition based on the use of trade marks that are likely to deceive or cause confusion. The opponent contended that its DURACELL trade mark, registered since 1965, and its DURA4X and DURA2X trade marks, registered in 2000, were earlier trade marks that were identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's mark, and that the applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the opponent had not established its grounds of opposition under sections 44 and 60. While the opponent provided evidence of its extensive use and promotion of the DURACELL trade mark in Australia, including sales figures and advertising, and the registration of its DURA4X and DURA2X marks, the delegate concluded that these did not satisfy the requirements of the relevant sections. The delegate's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the opponent had failed to demonstrate the necessary connection or similarity to warrant refusal of the applicant's IRDA.
Consequently, the delegate decided to allow the applicant's trade mark application number 977941 to proceed to protection one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. The applicant, having been successful, was awarded costs on the official scale.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. Section 44 concerns the use or registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks, while section 60 addresses opposition based on the use of trade marks that are likely to deceive or cause confusion. The opponent contended that its DURACELL trade mark, registered since 1965, and its DURA4X and DURA2X trade marks, registered in 2000, were earlier trade marks that were identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's mark, and that the applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.
The delegate found that the opponent had not established its grounds of opposition under sections 44 and 60. While the opponent provided evidence of its extensive use and promotion of the DURACELL trade mark in Australia, including sales figures and advertising, and the registration of its DURA4X and DURA2X marks, the delegate concluded that these did not satisfy the requirements of the relevant sections. The delegate's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the opponent had failed to demonstrate the necessary connection or similarity to warrant refusal of the applicant's IRDA.
Consequently, the delegate decided to allow the applicant's trade mark application number 977941 to proceed to protection one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. The applicant, having been successful, was awarded costs on the official scale.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd
[1937] HCA 51
Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co
[1960] HCA 47