Application for the below trade mark opposed by Insight Clinical (owner of the second trade mark below).
The opponent alleged that it was the owner of the applied for trade mark as it was substantially identical to its prior trade mark. The opponent’s evidence outlined it use of its trade mark prior to the adoption of the opposed mark.
So, the question turned to whether the trade marks above are substantially identical.
On this, the Hearing Officer first noted that the ‘radiology’ and ‘clinical imaging’ elements of the respective trade marks should be discounted for their generic/descriptive values. Next, the Hearing Officer observed that device elements were ‘differing versions of the same thing’, and finally that the services provided under both trade marks would be provided by reference to the identical element ‘insight’.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the both trade marks are substantially identical and the application was, therefore, refused.
To view the Office decision, click here.
This article is an extract from Spruson & Ferguson’s monthly summary of Australian Trade Mark Office decisions. You can view the entire month’s summary here.
Principal / Solicitor / Trade Mark Attorney
Litigation Team, Trade Marks Team
Associate / Trade Mark Attorney
Trade Marks Team