15 October, 2014

Fairmont Hotel Management L.P. v Schwartz Family Co. Pty Limited. [2014] ATMO 69

Fairmont Hotel Management L.P. v Schwartz Family Co. Pty Limited. [2014] ATMO 69

Fairmont Hotel Management L.P. opposed an application by Schwartz Family Co. Pty Limited for FAIRMONT in respect of ‘services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation’ in Class 43.

Fairmont Hotel owns and operates a chain of hotels worldwide (not including in Australia) under the trade mark FAIRMONT. Schwartz Family owns and operates a hotel in Australia under the below trade mark, which includes the element ‘FAIRMONT’.


Through the evidence led by Fairmont Hotel, it was able to demonstrate that there are at least three marketplaces for its services in Australia (noting that it does not operate any hotels in Australia): the general travelling public, travel agents and, tour organisers.

Fairmont Hotel demonstrated that it has an office in Australia which organises bookings by travel agents, corporate travel arrangers and tour organisers and which, in its turn, organises considerable publicity and promotion of the Opponent’s FAIRMONT branded hotels including, inter alia, Scenic Tours’ extensive television advertising which feature the Opponent’s trade mark.

Fairmont Hotel was also able to lead evidence of confusion between its services and those provided by Schwartz Family.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that the opposition had been made out under section 60 and the Schwartz Family application 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
Sydney, Australia


Associate / Trade Mark Attorney
Trade Marks Team
Sydney, Australia


Latest Tweets

Follow @sprusons on twitter.