Trade mark application numbers 2024255 and 2024256 (Class 9) – Shape of hand grip and stand for mobile devices- in the name of PopSockets LLC.
Case
•
[2021] ATMO 125
•26 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trade mark application numbers 2024255 and 2024256 (Class 9) – Shape of hand grip and stand for mobile devices- in the name of PopSockets LLC. [2021] ATMO 125
[2021] ATMO 125
26 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns two trade mark applications, numbers 2024255 and 2024256, filed by PopSockets LLC for a shape of a hand grip and stand for mobile devices in Class 9. The applications were heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applied-for trade marks were capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from the goods of other persons, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved determining if the shape of the hand grip and stand was dictated by its function or was otherwise a common or standard shape for such products.
The delegate reasoned that the evidence, including declarations from the applicant's CEO, indicated that the specific shape of the grip and stand was chosen for aesthetic reasons and was not essential to its utilitarian or functional advantages. The CEO stated that the functional aspects of the product could be achieved with numerous alternative shapes, and provided examples of other grips and stands with different designs that performed similar functions. The delegate concluded that the shape was not inherently distinctive and had not acquired distinctiveness.
Consequently, the delegate found grounds for rejecting the trade mark applications under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). As the applicant had been given an opportunity to be heard, the delegate rejected both applications.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the applied-for trade marks were capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from the goods of other persons, as required by section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved determining if the shape of the hand grip and stand was dictated by its function or was otherwise a common or standard shape for such products.
The delegate reasoned that the evidence, including declarations from the applicant's CEO, indicated that the specific shape of the grip and stand was chosen for aesthetic reasons and was not essential to its utilitarian or functional advantages. The CEO stated that the functional aspects of the product could be achieved with numerous alternative shapes, and provided examples of other grips and stands with different designs that performed similar functions. The delegate concluded that the shape was not inherently distinctive and had not acquired distinctiveness.
Consequently, the delegate found grounds for rejecting the trade mark applications under section 41 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). As the applicant had been given an opportunity to be heard, the delegate rejected both applications.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
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
Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2002] FCAFC 273