Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste

Crocodile International Pte Ltd sought to have a trade mark registration revoked against Lacoste. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the applicant, Crocodile International Pte Ltd, had established that the trade mark had not been used in New Zealand for a continuous period of three years, as required by s 66(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 2002. This was the statutory ground for revocation of the registration of the trade mark. The Court considered whether the onus of proof was on the applicant to show that the trade mark had not been used for the requisite period, or whether it was on the respondent, Lacoste, to prove that it had used the trade mark.

The Court found that the onus of proof was on the applicant to show that the trade mark had not been used for the requisite period, as per s 67 of the Trade Marks Act 2002. The Court held that the applicant had not discharged this onus. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the trade mark had not been used for the requisite period. The Court held that the application for revocation was therefore unsuccessful.

The Court ordered that the application for revocation be dismissed, with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The Court held that the onus of proof was on the applicant to establish that the trade mark had not been used for the requisite period, and that the applicant had not discharged this onus. The Court found that the application for revocation was therefore unsuccessful, and that the registration of the trade mark should remain in place.