01 April, 2014
Spruson

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary January & February 2014

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary January & February 2014

We have produced a summary of the Australian Trade Mark Office decisions from January & February 2014 which provides practitioners and brand owners with a succinct, accessible database detailing current trends in Australian trade marks practice.

January 2014

Unilever Plc v XADO-Holding Ltd [2014] ATMO 1 It Is Not ‘D’-eceptively Similar.


Presence of the letter ‘D’ is enough for the Office to find marks OMO and DOMO are not similar (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>


FetchTV Pty Ltd v LemonStone Group Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 2 FETCH Me Some New Technology.


Applications for ‘FETCH’ formative marks refused with televisions and computers found to be similar goods (section 44).
Read full article >>


Société des Produits Nestlé S.A v Jason Marks [2014] ATMO 3
NESPRESSO, What Else?

INSPRESSO too close to NESPRESSO (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>


Dimitri V. Chiotelis and Evangelos E. Chiotelis v TAP Worldwide
LLC [2014] ATMO 4
Licence to Use.



Non-use not rebuffed by granting of a licence without actual use (section 92).
Read full article >>


The Procter & Gamble Company a corporation organised and existing
under the laws of the State of Ohio, United States of America [2014]
ATMO 5
As Advertised.




Trade mark SWEEPER + VAC too descriptive for vacuums (section 41).
Read full article >>


National Health Call Centre Network Ltd [2014] ATMO 6 Call a Doctor, this Application is Dead.


Inconsistent use and not enough promotion to consumers leads to refusal of NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTORY (section 41).
Read full article >>


Roger Maier v Asos Plc [2014] ATMO 7
On Your Bike!

Honest concurrent use of ASOS in the face of ASSOS leads to ASOS being granted limited registration (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>


Unilever Australia Limited/and jointly by Unilever Australia Limited
and Unilever plc. v The Procter and Gamble Company [2014] ATMO 8
PODS not Descriptive of a ‘pod'.



Registration granted for the trade marks PODS and POWER PODS (sections 41 and 59).
Read full article >>


OMS Investments Inc. v Dulux Group Australia Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 9 No WEEDS to FEED in the House (mark).


Application refused on the basis that the trade mark is primarily used in close association with a ‘house mark’ and other traders are using similar marks already (section 41).
Read full article >>


Western Australian Land Authority [2014] ATMO 10 A Game of Monopoly on THE JETTY.


Office finds highly stylised mark containing THE JETTY and a geographical term is too similar to application for THE JETTY (section 44).
Read full article >>

February 2014

Radio Systems Corp v Sustainable Agriculture and Food Enterprises
Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 12
Keep Consumers SAFE from PET Confusion.



Near identical trade marks for different goods that are sold side-by-side in supermarkets may lead to deception or confusion (section 60).
Read full article >>


Bioengineering AG [2014] ATMO 14
"A nonsense word".

Stylised version of the word ‘bioengineering’ fails on section 41 (section 41).
Read full article >>


Century 21 Real Estate LLC [2014] ATMO 15
NOT. ENOUGH.USE.

Century 21 denied registration for SMARTER.BOLDER.FASTER after evidence of use fails to convince (section 41).
Read full article >>


Dick Smith Investments Pty Ltd v Roger John Ramsey [2014] ATMO 16 No MITE-ship Between Aussies.


Dick Smith OZEMITE registration removed for non-use, advertising a product that is not actual available for purchase does not constitute ‘use’ (sections 92 and 100).
Read full article >>


Bentley Worldwide Shoes Limited v Transport For London [2014] ATMO 17 London’s UNDERGROUND Trade Marks.


Jewellery and glasses not similar to clothing, and no reputation for opponent (sections 44 and 60).
Read full article >>


Gregory Paul Roebuck v News Limited [2014] ATMO 19
EvidenceGUIDE.

News Limited’s efforts in obtaining registration through evidence of use rewarded in failed attempt to oppose registration of its CARSGUIDE trade mark (section 41).
Read full article >>


Universal International Music BV v Island Company LLC [2014] ATMO 18 Running on ISLAND Time.


Opponent does not file evidence and fails in opposition (section 52).
Read full article >>


Combined Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Reln Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 20 You are ‘tanking’ this class, RAINMATE.


Non-use partially successful, opponent’s registration restricted and transferred to a different class (section 92).
Read full article >>


Please feel free to get in touch with one of our trade mark professionals with any questions you may have. You can find out more about the breadth of our trade mark services throughout Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific here.


Latest Tweets

Follow @sprusons on twitter.