Woodman Labs Inc (Now GoPro, Inc) v Ross Walmsley
Case
•
[2015] ATMO 81
•4 September 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Woodman Labs Inc (Now GoPro, Inc) v Ross Walmsley [2015] ATMO 81
[2015] ATMO 81
4 September 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Woodman Labs Inc (now GoPro, Inc) opposed the registration of a trade mark by Ross Walmsley before the Hearings Officer of the Trade Marks Hearings. The dispute concerned the grounds of opposition raised by Woodman Labs Inc.
The primary legal issue before the Hearings Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under subparagraph 42(b) of the relevant Act, had been established by Woodman Labs Inc. A preliminary issue also arose regarding the admissibility of a declaration made by Ross Walmsley, which Woodman Labs Inc sought to have considered by the Hearings Officer, even though it was filed after the usual timeframes for evidence submission.
The Hearings Officer determined that the opposition under subparagraph 42(b) was not established. The decision was based on the evidence presented, which did not satisfy the requirements for the opposition to succeed. The Hearings Officer also addressed the preliminary issue concerning the admissibility of Mr Walmsley's declaration, ultimately reserving a decision on that point to be included with the substantive decision. The Hearings Officer found that the opponent had not established its opposition to the registration of the trade mark.
The Hearings Officer ordered that the trade mark may proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Costs were awarded against the Opponent.
The primary legal issue before the Hearings Officer was whether the grounds of opposition, specifically under subparagraph 42(b) of the relevant Act, had been established by Woodman Labs Inc. A preliminary issue also arose regarding the admissibility of a declaration made by Ross Walmsley, which Woodman Labs Inc sought to have considered by the Hearings Officer, even though it was filed after the usual timeframes for evidence submission.
The Hearings Officer determined that the opposition under subparagraph 42(b) was not established. The decision was based on the evidence presented, which did not satisfy the requirements for the opposition to succeed. The Hearings Officer also addressed the preliminary issue concerning the admissibility of Mr Walmsley's declaration, ultimately reserving a decision on that point to be included with the substantive decision. The Hearings Officer found that the opponent had not established its opposition to the registration of the trade mark.
The Hearings Officer ordered that the trade mark may proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served, in which case registration would be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Costs were awarded against the Opponent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
The President and Fellows of Harvard College v Harvard Legal Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 25
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Katong Club Pty Ltd
[2025] ATMO 72
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v Casella Wines Pty Limited
[2025] ATMO 50
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891
Sports Warehouse, Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd
[2010] FCA 664