Zhun-An Ma v Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2024] ATMO 207
•23 October 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Zhun-An Ma v Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd [2024] ATMO 207
[2024] ATMO 207
23 October 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Zhun-An Ma opposed an application by Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd for the removal of trade mark number 1762079, known as SHELTA (fig.), from the Register of Trade Marks. The application for removal was brought under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The matter was heard by Bianca Irgang.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd had established grounds for the removal of the SHELTA trade mark. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the trade mark had been used by the registered owner, Zhun-An Ma, in a manner that was likely to deceive or cause confusion, or whether the trade mark had been abandoned.
The court found that Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd had not discharged its onus of proof in establishing the grounds for removal under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the use of the SHELTA trade mark by Zhun-An Ma was likely to deceive or cause confusion, nor did it establish that the trade mark had been abandoned. Consequently, the opposition to the removal application was upheld.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd had established grounds for the removal of the SHELTA trade mark. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the trade mark had been used by the registered owner, Zhun-An Ma, in a manner that was likely to deceive or cause confusion, or whether the trade mark had been abandoned.
The court found that Geographe Bay Brewing Co Pty Ltd had not discharged its onus of proof in establishing the grounds for removal under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995*. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the use of the SHELTA trade mark by Zhun-An Ma was likely to deceive or cause confusion, nor did it establish that the trade mark had been abandoned. Consequently, the opposition to the removal application was upheld.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
6
AgCare Biotech Pty Ltd v Crop Smart Pty Ltd
[2009] ATMO 41
Trident Seafoods Corporation v Trident Foods Pty Ltd
[2019] FCAFC 100