Deed of Assignment of Intellectual Property
$320.00Page 12
Format Microsoft Word
Your most precious asset. Unprotected, it could ruin you. Can you run the risk?
We have an expert team of advisors to assist with:
We as Intellectual Property experts are in charge of a large Trade Mark database and have successfully defended and prosecuted Trade Marks on behalf of our clients. A most recent case study was the successful defence of a claim commenced by Red Bull GmbH against our client Total Eden.
Red Bull claimed that Total Eden’s Butt Head logo was filed in classes that were similar to its Red Bull two charging bulls logo, was deceptively similar to this device and that the Butt Head logo it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the marketplace.
The opposed trade mark covered a range of water pumps, pipes and plastic fittings for drains and valves in classes 7, 17, 19 and 20. Red Bull led evidence of its use and prior registration of the below trade mark that covers similar goods to those of the opposed mark.
In determining that the two trade marks were not deceptively similar, the Hearing Officer agreed with Total Eden’s comment that:
Just because an impugned mark contains the whole of, or a prominent and distinct feature of, a prior mark does not inevitably result in a finding of deceptive similarity. It is necessary to consider the marks as a whole (visually and aurally) and all surrounding circumstances.
The Hearing Officer considered the nature of the goods (being somewhat specialised), the notable visual differences, and the “massive reputation” of RedBull’s trade mark (which the Hearing Officer found would actually reduce the risk of confusion). The Hearing Officer noted that while there was an obvious reputation held by Red Bull in its trade mark, it was not directly in relation to the goods at issue. The Hearing Officer also noted that Total Eden’s goods are not likely to be purchased on impulse. Purchasers of such goods are likely to take due care in their selection and therefore the risk of confusion is likely to be low. On this basis the Hearing Officer found that the trade marks were not deceptively similar and there was no likelihood of consumer deception or confusion. Total Eden’s trade mark proceeded to registration. For a copy of the full decision please go to Red Bull GmbH v Total Eden Pty Ltd [2015] ATMO 67 (20 July 2015)
We would only be too happy to assist with carrying out a search of your brand name to ensure it can be protected globally. Please complete our Trade Mark Application Form and we can arrange to discuss your brand when you book your Priority Legal Advice.
Page 12
Format Microsoft Word
Page 9
Format Microsoft Word
Page 9
Format Microsoft Word