Treasury Chateau & Estates v Australian Wine Exporters Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] ATMO 55
•9 April 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Treasury Chateau & Estates v Australian Wine Exporters Pty Ltd [2019] ATMO 55
[2019] ATMO 55
9 April 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition filed by Treasury Chateau & Estates (the Opponent), an American company and subsidiary of Treasury Wine Estates, against an application by Australian Wine Exporters Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to register a trade mark. The dispute arose after the acceptance of the Applicant's trade mark for registration, leading the Opponent to file a Notice of Intention to Oppose and subsequently a Statement of Grounds and Particulars. The opposition was heard by Nicholas Smith, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The court was required to determine several grounds of opposition, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 60, and 62A of the relevant Act. Specifically, the Opponent contended that the Applicant's proposed trade mark, which included the acronym "BV" and the term "JALIE," was likely to cause confusion with its own well-known trade marks, particularly those associated with "Beaulieu Vineyard" and its acronym "BV," which had been in use since 1900. The Opponent also raised grounds relating to bad faith.
In reaching its decision, the delegate noted that the onus was on the Opponent to establish bad faith, a serious allegation that is not easily proven. The delegate found that the evidence presented by the Opponent regarding reputation in its marks, other than the "Figurative Mark," was limited. Furthermore, the delegate observed considerable visual, aural, and conceptual dissimilarities between the Applicant's trade mark and the Opponent's trade marks. Consequently, the delegate concluded that the Applicant's decision to adopt the mark was not made with the intention of taking advantage of the Opponent's reputation. The Opponent failed to establish the ground of opposition under s 62A, and by extension, all other nominated grounds.
The delegate ordered that the Applicant's trade mark application, no. 1785757, could proceed to registration not less than one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal had been served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
The court was required to determine several grounds of opposition, including those under sections 42(b), 44, 60, and 62A of the relevant Act. Specifically, the Opponent contended that the Applicant's proposed trade mark, which included the acronym "BV" and the term "JALIE," was likely to cause confusion with its own well-known trade marks, particularly those associated with "Beaulieu Vineyard" and its acronym "BV," which had been in use since 1900. The Opponent also raised grounds relating to bad faith.
In reaching its decision, the delegate noted that the onus was on the Opponent to establish bad faith, a serious allegation that is not easily proven. The delegate found that the evidence presented by the Opponent regarding reputation in its marks, other than the "Figurative Mark," was limited. Furthermore, the delegate observed considerable visual, aural, and conceptual dissimilarities between the Applicant's trade mark and the Opponent's trade marks. Consequently, the delegate concluded that the Applicant's decision to adopt the mark was not made with the intention of taking advantage of the Opponent's reputation. The Opponent failed to establish the ground of opposition under s 62A, and by extension, all other nominated grounds.
The delegate ordered that the Applicant's trade mark application, no. 1785757, could proceed to registration not less than one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal had been served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
26
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020