22 April, 2014
Spruson

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary March 2014

Australian Trade Mark Office Decisions Summary March 2014

Each month we produce a summary of the Australian Trade Marks Office decisions to provide practitioners and brand owners with a succinct, accessible database detailing current trends in Australian trade marks practice.

Storage King Pty Ltd and Storage King Services Pty Ltd v King Arthurs
Storage [2014] ATMO 21
Store your ‘round table’ elsewhere.



KING ARTHUR denied registration due to reputation in STORAGE KING (section 60).
Read full article >>


Creative Nail Design, Inc. v Guangzhou Bluesky Chemical Technology Co.,
Ltd. [2014] ATMO 22
Imitators are in for a SHELLACing.



SHELLAC not considered a generic term, rights in registration enforced as confusion, or wonderment, likely (section 44).
Read full article >>


Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 23
With 88-88 vision.

Hearing Officer agrees with previous Federal Court finding that registration should be refused (section 60).
Read full article >>


Apple Inc [2014] ATMO 24

Apple able to convince Office to view identical cited mark’s specification narrowly, as its wording was open to interpretation (section 44).
Read full article >>


Hearst Communications, Inc. v Bazaar International Holdings Limited
[2014] ATMO 25
How BAZZAR.



Owner of fashion magazine, Harper’s Bazaar, opposes registration of HAPRER’s BAZZAR (with Chinese characters) for jewellery (section 60).
Read full article >>


Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Limited [2014] ATMO 26 Others able to cut SIR WALTER’s grass.


Owner of Plant Breeder’s Right for Sir Walter grass, unable to register SIR WALTER as a trade mark (section 41).
Read full article >>


Federal-Mogul Corporation v Fujikura Diesel Co.Ltd. [2014] ATMO 31
F, that is my DIESEL trade mark.

Opponent succeeds on prior reputation (section 60).
Read full article >>


Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd v CAN Industries Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 27 Wine trade slowing? Diversify!


Applicant using for wine, but not for other services. Office infers no intention to use from failure to respond (section 59).
Read full article >>


Latest Tweets

Follow @sprusons on twitter.