Trade mark application number 2063359 and 2065970 (classes 9 and 42) – SMARTSCAN - in the name of Expensify, Inc.
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 35
•11 March 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trade mark application number 2063359 and 2065970 (classes 9 and 42) – SMARTSCAN - in the name of Expensify, Inc. [2022] ATMO 35
[2022] ATMO 35
11 March 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned trade mark applications numbers 2063359 and 2065970, filed by Expensify, Inc. for the mark SMARTSCAN in classes 9 and 42. The applications were opposed, and the hearing officer was required to determine whether the trade mark was registrable.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the trade mark SMARTSCAN was inherently capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer also considered the "combined effect" of the mark's inherent adaptation to distinguish, its use or intended use, and any other relevant circumstances to determine if it would, in fact, distinguish the applicant's offerings from those of other persons.
The hearing officer found that while the trade mark SMARTSCAN was not directly descriptive of the applicant's goods and services, it fell closer to the descriptive end of the spectrum than the allusive end, meaning it possessed only a limited degree of inherent distinctiveness. However, the hearing officer was satisfied that the extensive evidence of use of the trade mark in Australia and globally since at least 2012, coupled with significant year-on-year growth in customer numbers, revenue, and downloads of the applicant's app, demonstrated that the mark was in fact capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services.
Accordingly, the hearing officer accepted both trade mark applications, subject to an appropriate endorsement being added to the Register.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the trade mark SMARTSCAN was inherently capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer also considered the "combined effect" of the mark's inherent adaptation to distinguish, its use or intended use, and any other relevant circumstances to determine if it would, in fact, distinguish the applicant's offerings from those of other persons.
The hearing officer found that while the trade mark SMARTSCAN was not directly descriptive of the applicant's goods and services, it fell closer to the descriptive end of the spectrum than the allusive end, meaning it possessed only a limited degree of inherent distinctiveness. However, the hearing officer was satisfied that the extensive evidence of use of the trade mark in Australia and globally since at least 2012, coupled with significant year-on-year growth in customer numbers, revenue, and downloads of the applicant's app, demonstrated that the mark was in fact capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services.
Accordingly, the hearing officer accepted both trade mark applications, subject to an appropriate endorsement being added to the Register.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1964] HCA 55
Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited
[2014] HCA 48
Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd
[2017] FCA 823