The Hub Marketing Communications Pty Ltd v Hub Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2017] ATMO 37
•28 April 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Hub Marketing Communications Pty Ltd v Hub Australia Pty Ltd [2017] ATMO 37
[2017] ATMO 37
28 April 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute before the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks concerned an opposition to the registration of a trade mark. The Opponent, The Hub Marketing Communications Pty Ltd, opposed the application by Hub Australia Pty Ltd for registration of the trade mark "HUB". The Opponent had been using trade marks incorporating the word "Hub" since 2006 in relation to marketing, advertising, and promotional services, and had provided these services across Australia.
The Opponent's opposition was based on the ground that the word "HUB" was too vague and not particular to the applicant's services, therefore failing to distinguish them. The Opponent argued that while the applicant might consider itself the centre of its activity, this could be said of any business, and the word "HUB" did not specifically describe any particular good or service. The relevant date for considering the grounds of opposition under section 52 of the Act was the filing date of the opposed application.
The delegate considered the evidence filed by both parties, including declarations from their respective directors, and the written and oral submissions made. The Opponent bore the onus of establishing its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities. The delegate noted that the Opponent had registered several trade marks containing "Hub", but the decision would not rely on those registrations. The applicant's core service was the provision of co-working spaces, office administration, and business support services.
Ultimately, the delegate refused to register the trade mark "HUB" for the applicant's services.
The Opponent's opposition was based on the ground that the word "HUB" was too vague and not particular to the applicant's services, therefore failing to distinguish them. The Opponent argued that while the applicant might consider itself the centre of its activity, this could be said of any business, and the word "HUB" did not specifically describe any particular good or service. The relevant date for considering the grounds of opposition under section 52 of the Act was the filing date of the opposed application.
The delegate considered the evidence filed by both parties, including declarations from their respective directors, and the written and oral submissions made. The Opponent bore the onus of establishing its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities. The delegate noted that the Opponent had registered several trade marks containing "Hub", but the decision would not rely on those registrations. The applicant's core service was the provision of co-working spaces, office administration, and business support services.
Ultimately, the delegate refused to register the trade mark "HUB" for the applicant's services.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020