A recent trade mark opposition decision, where the opponent succeeded on the ground that use of the mark applied for would be contrary to law under section 42 of the Trade Marks Act, is a useful reminder of the effectiveness of this ground in the right circumstances. The applicant had filed applications for the mark HEPBURN BATHHOUSE AND SPA, which was the name of a spa business she had attempted to lease. The applicant failed in her attempt to obtain a lease of this business. The Hearing Officer found that the applicant's trade marks were misleading and deceptive for a number of reasons, including as to the nature of the business operated by the applicant and its connection with the actual Hepburn Bathhouse and Spa. This conduct amounted to a breach of sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act (now sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law) and the section 42 ground was made out
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Successful opposition based on "use would be contrary to law"
- Baker & McKenzie
- September 4 2012
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Group Manager, Legal and Business Services
Australian Grand Prix Corporation