Trade mark application number 2085415 (classes 16, 41, 44) – Clear Aligner Excellence – in the name of Clear Aligner Excellence Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 22
•15 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trade mark application number 2085415 (classes 16, 41, 44) – Clear Aligner Excellence – in the name of Clear Aligner Excellence Pty Ltd [2022] ATMO 22
[2022] ATMO 22
15 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned trade mark application number 2085415, for the mark "Clear Aligner Excellence" in classes 16, 41, and 44, filed by Clear Aligner Excellence Pty Ltd. The decision was made by Nicholas Barbey, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the trade mark application should be rejected on the grounds that the mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, as provided for under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The applicant had not filed any evidence in support of its application.
The Hearing Officer found that a ground for rejection existed under section 41 of the Act. In the absence of any evidence filed by the applicant, the Hearing Officer was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the trade mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's claimed goods and services. Consequently, the Hearing Officer rejected the application pursuant to section 33(3) of the Act. The Hearing Officer also directed that if a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar of Trade Marks within one month, the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the court's direction or order.
The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the trade mark application should be rejected on the grounds that the mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services, as provided for under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The applicant had not filed any evidence in support of its application.
The Hearing Officer found that a ground for rejection existed under section 41 of the Act. In the absence of any evidence filed by the applicant, the Hearing Officer was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the trade mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's claimed goods and services. Consequently, the Hearing Officer rejected the application pursuant to section 33(3) of the Act. The Hearing Officer also directed that if a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar of Trade Marks within one month, the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the court's direction or order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
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
Agapitos v Habibi
[2014] WASC 47