United Assets Pty Limited v Lakeside Estate Pty Limited
Case
•
[1998] ATMO 38
•18 August 1998
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
United Assets Pty Limited v Lakeside Estate Pty Limited [1998] ATMO 38
[1998] ATMO 38
18 August 1998
CaseChat Overview and Summary
United Assets Pty Limited (the applicant) sought to strike out the opposition of Lakeside Estate Pty Limited (the opponent) to the registration of a trade mark. The dispute arose from the opponent's failure to file evidence in support of its opposition within the prescribed time limits.
The court was required to determine whether the opponent had made a sufficient application for an extension of time to serve its evidence in support of the opposition, and if not, whether the opposition should be struck out.
The court noted that the opponent had sought to rely on a declaration as evidence in support of its opposition and had requested further time to serve this evidence. However, the court found that the opponent had not complied with the procedural requirements for seeking a late extension of time, specifically by failing to provide a supporting declaration explaining the reasons for the delay and failing to pay the required fee. As the opponent made no such application within the time granted by the Registrar, the court concluded that the time allowed for serving the evidence had expired.
The court ordered that the opposition be struck out.
The court was required to determine whether the opponent had made a sufficient application for an extension of time to serve its evidence in support of the opposition, and if not, whether the opposition should be struck out.
The court noted that the opponent had sought to rely on a declaration as evidence in support of its opposition and had requested further time to serve this evidence. However, the court found that the opponent had not complied with the procedural requirements for seeking a late extension of time, specifically by failing to provide a supporting declaration explaining the reasons for the delay and failing to pay the required fee. As the opponent made no such application within the time granted by the Registrar, the court concluded that the time allowed for serving the evidence had expired.
The court ordered that the opposition be struck out.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0