The President and Fellows of Harvard College v Harvard Legal Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 25
•6 February 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The President and Fellows of Harvard College v Harvard Legal Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 25
[2025] ATMO 25
6 February 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The President and Fellows of Harvard College (the Opponent) opposed the registration of a trade mark by Harvard Legal Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The dispute concerned the grounds of opposition nominated under sections 42(b), 43, 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), although the section 44 ground was not pressed. The matter was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the Opponent had satisfied the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that one or more of the nominated grounds of opposition were established. The assessment of the parties' rights was to be made as at 21 December 2021, which was the filing date and priority date for the purposes of section 60.
The delegate considered evidence filed by both parties, including declarations from representatives and the director of the Applicant. The Opponent sought to introduce further evidence to establish the possibility that the director's name had changed after the trade mark application was filed, and questioned the director's existence. However, the delegate determined that this further evidence had no material bearing on the outcome of the substantive decision and therefore did not need to be considered. The delegate's decision was based on the evidence and submissions presented, and the grounds of opposition that were pressed.
The legal issues before the delegate were whether the Opponent had satisfied the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that one or more of the nominated grounds of opposition were established. The assessment of the parties' rights was to be made as at 21 December 2021, which was the filing date and priority date for the purposes of section 60.
The delegate considered evidence filed by both parties, including declarations from representatives and the director of the Applicant. The Opponent sought to introduce further evidence to establish the possibility that the director's name had changed after the trade mark application was filed, and questioned the director's existence. However, the delegate determined that this further evidence had no material bearing on the outcome of the substantive decision and therefore did not need to be considered. The delegate's decision was based on the evidence and submissions presented, and the grounds of opposition that were pressed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick
[2000] FCA 1335
Renaud Cointreau v Cordon Bleu International Ltee
[2001] FCA 1170