Trade mark application number 2458096 (class 20) – FLAIR OFFICE FURNITURE & FITOUTS (fig.) - in the names of Adrian Pursell and Goninon Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 41
•27 February 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trade mark application number 2458096 (class 20) – FLAIR OFFICE FURNITURE & FITOUTS (fig.) - in the names of Adrian Pursell and Goninon Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 41
[2025] ATMO 41
27 February 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns trade mark application number 2458096 for the figurative mark FLAIR OFFICE FURNITURE & FITOUTS, filed by Adrian Pursell and Goninon Pty Ltd. The application was opposed on the grounds of deceptive similarity to an earlier registered mark, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer, Tracey Berger, was required to determine whether the applied-for trade mark was deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark, thereby constituting a ground for rejection.
The hearing officer considered the provisions of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which prohibits the registration of a trade mark if it is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark. The applicant had not provided any evidence to support claims of honest concurrent use or prior use under sections 44(3) or (4), nor had they drawn attention to any other relevant circumstances that might be considered under section 44(3)(b).
On the balance of probabilities, the hearing officer was satisfied that a ground for rejecting the application existed under section 44. Consequently, under section 33(3) of the Act, trade mark application number 2458096 was rejected. The hearing officer also directed that if a notice of appeal were served on the Registrar within one month of the decision, the disposition of the application would be in accordance with the court's order or direction.
The hearing officer considered the provisions of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which prohibits the registration of a trade mark if it is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark. The applicant had not provided any evidence to support claims of honest concurrent use or prior use under sections 44(3) or (4), nor had they drawn attention to any other relevant circumstances that might be considered under section 44(3)(b).
On the balance of probabilities, the hearing officer was satisfied that a ground for rejecting the application existed under section 44. Consequently, under section 33(3) of the Act, trade mark application number 2458096 was rejected. The hearing officer also directed that if a notice of appeal were served on the Registrar within one month of the decision, the disposition of the application would be in accordance with the court's order or direction.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd
[2023] FCAFC 203