TRADE MARKS ACT 1995
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Trade mark application number 2140228 (19) - Colour: blue pantone 3015U - in the name of Wesbeam Holdings Limited
Delegate: Louise Tuohy Representation: Applicant: Megan Evetts of counsel, instructed by Bennett & Co Decision: 2022 ATMO 116
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – section 33 proceedings – s 41 – trade mark not capable of distinguishing – evidence not sufficient – trade mark application rejectedBackground
1. This decision follows from an ex parte hearing at the request of Wesbeam Holdings Limited (‘Applicant’) pursuant to s 33 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Act’) in relation to the following trade mark application:
Application Number: 2140228
Trade Mark:
The Trade Mark is a colour mark. It consists of the colour(s) Pantone 3015U as applied to the exterior of the goods covered by the application as shown in the representation(s) attached to the application form. (‘Claimed Trade Mark’)
Filing Date: 2 December 2020
Specification: Class 19: Laminated veneer lumber (‘LVL’) (‘Designated Goods’)
2. The application was examined as required by s 31 of the Act and grounds for rejection were raised under s 41(3) and s 44 of the Act. The first examination report issued on 11 December 2020 and raised the grounds for rejection as follows:
Section 41(3)
Your trade mark is the colour BLUE.
Colours are commonly applied to goods. For this reason, it is unlikely consumers to assume that colours identify the particular trader supplying the goods. Timber and lumber goods, such as you have claimed, are often colour coded to help identify particular features or qualities of the goods. My research indicates that the colour BLUE is commonly used by a number of traders to indicate that timber has been treated for resistance to termites. As your trade mark indicates a quality or function of your goods, it is not capable of acting as a badge of origin for your goods.
Other traders should be able to use the colour BLUE, or one so similar, in connection with goods or services similar to yours.
Section 44
Trade Mark Number: 700016
Your trade mark closely resembles the earlier trade mark [700016] because both marks claim the colour BLUE. As the earlier mark does not indicate which particular shade of BLUE they are using, there is a real and tangible danger of confusion between the marks.
AND
The goods are similar because the earlier mark's claims for flooring materials and particle board in Class 19 are similar to your claim for laminated veneered lumber also in Class 19.
3. In support of the application the Applicant made submissions and filed the following declarations:
- Declaration of Jessie Mileto, Owner of BOM Timber, made on 8 February 2021.
- Declaration of Daryl Prothero, Managing Director of Oxley Frame and Truss, made on 8 February 2021.
- Declaration of Bruce Biddle, Trade Manager of Margaret River Mitre 10,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wesbeam Holdings Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] ATMO 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the hearing officer was whether Wesbeam Holdings Limited had discharged its onus under section 41(3) of the relevant Act to demonstrate that the claimed trade mark, being a single colour, had acquired distinctiveness in relation to the designated goods by the relevant date. This required an assessment of the evidence presented to establish that consumers recognised the colour blue (Pantone 3015U) as indicating the origin of Wesbeam's goods.
The hearing officer found that the evidence presented by Wesbeam Holdings Limited fell short of demonstrating the necessary distinctiveness. Consequently, the hearing officer was satisfied that there was a ground for rejecting the claimed trade mark under section 41 of the Act.
In accordance with section 33(3) of the Act, trade mark application number 2140228 was rejected. The hearing officer also directed that if a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar within one month of the decision, the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the Court's order or direction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.