Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TRADEMARKS – ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - review of decision of Registrar – extension of time in which to file notice of opposition – whether "error or omission" in accordance with the Trade Marks Regulations.
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Patents Act 1952 (Cth) Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) Kimberly-Clark Ltd v Commissioner of Patents ( No 3) (1988) 131 IPR 569, cited Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 357-368, cited Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 at 77, cited
CHIRON CORPORATION v THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS NG 576 of 1997 BRANSON J SYDNEY 7 AUGUST 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 576 of 1997
BETWEEN: CHIRON CORPORATION
Applicant
AND: THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Respondent
JUDGE(S): BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 7 aUGUST 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks be affirmed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 576 of 1997
BETWEEN: CHIRON CORPORATION
Applicant
AND: THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Respondent
JUDGE(S): BRANSON J
DATE: 7 aUGUST 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION This is an application under s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") for an order of review in respect of the decision of the first respondent that an application for an extension of time within which the applicant may file a notice of opposition to the registration of the trade mark in Trade Mark Application No. 672041 be refused. Trade Mark Application No. 672041 has been made by the second respondent. It is accepted that the applicant is a person who is aggrieved by a decision to which the ADJR Act applies within the meaning of s 5 of the ADJR Act. The ground upon which the application was argued is that the decision involved an error of law. The alternative ground identified in the written application, that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Act"), was not pressed.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate