Federal Court Determines That “Double Patenting” Is Not a Basis for Revocation

Steven R Smith v Car2go GmbH [2013] ATMO 103

Share

Steven R Smith, owner of the trade marks “1800 CAR 2 GO” and “car2go” in Class 39 (Transport services; motor vehicle hire services) and “car2go” in Class 35 (Promotion (advertising) of business), successfully opposed, in part, the application by Car2go GmbH for the trade mark “CAR2GO” in Classes 12, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38 and 41.

Previously, after a negative examination report under s 44 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), Car2go GmbH had deleted a range of business and advertising services in class 35 and divided a range of advertising services in class 35 into a divisional application.

The opponent, Steven R Smith, did succeed in part under s 44.  In particular, the delegate decided that it is not uncommon for vehicle hire services to also sell used cars for the classes to be deceptively similar.  The delegate further decided that headgear, clothing and toys, in particular model cars, are frequently used as promotional material by vehicle hire services for the services to be so closely related as to cause likely deception or confusion.

In conclusion, the applicant was instructed, to amend the description of the classes it seeks application by deleting certain descriptions from the classes in conflict.

Share
Back to Articles

Contact our Expert Team

Contact Us