06 March, 2014
Spruson

Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 23

Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2014] ATMO 23

Application for OPTICAL 88 & Device (pictured below) opposed on the grounds of section 60.

This matter had, in a manner, already been before the Full Federal Court as it considered infringement allegations brought by the opponent against the applicant in relation to the same trade marks as discussed in this Hearing.

Yates J in Optical 88 Limited v Optical 99 Pty Limited and Others formed the view that the above application would be unlikely to survive an opposition based on section 44 or 60 (brought by the opponent).

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Hearing Officer (essentially bound by the higher authority and quoting that authority throughout the decision) agreed with Yates J and refused to register the application.

To view the Office decision, click here.

<< Previous Decision

Latest Tweets

Follow @sprusons on twitter.