USpa Corporation Pty Ltd v Is Dongseo Co., Ltd

Case

[2019] ATMO 5

16 January 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
USpa Corporation Pty Ltd v Is Dongseo Co., Ltd [2019] ATMO 5 [2019] ATMO 5 16 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

USpa Corporation Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to have a trade mark registered for the mark "USPA" in relation to a range of goods and services, including clothing, footwear, headwear, and retail services. Is Dongseo Co., Ltd (the opponent) opposed the registration, relying on its prior registration of the trade mark "USPA" for similar goods and services. The hearing officer considered the opposition on the basis of the opponent's prior registration and the potential for confusion between the two marks.

The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark, pursuant to section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as a consideration of the respective goods and services for which the marks were registered and sought to be registered.

The hearing officer found that the marks "USPA" were identical. The goods and services for which the applicant sought registration were also found to be substantially identical with or closely related to the goods and services for which the opponent's mark was registered. Consequently, the hearing officer concluded that there was a real likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the trade source of the goods and services.

The opposition was therefore upheld, and the application for registration of the trade mark "USPA" by USpa Corporation Pty Ltd was refused.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Standing

  • Appeal

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

8

Statutory Material Cited

0

Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663