All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

The importance of providing sufficient evidence in invalidation proceedings

Sponsored by aj-park.png
nz-evidence-min.jpg

A recent trademark decision by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) reveals the importance of submitting reliable and probative evidence in invalidation proceedings, even when the invalidation proceedings are undefended by the trademark owner.

The decision confirms that IPONZ regards trademark registrations as important property rights that will not be invalidated unless the applicant makes out a true prima facie case for invalidity.

Case summary

g7

Cong Ty Co Phan Dau Tu Trung Nguyen (the applicant) applied to invalidate trademark registration 1067280 (G7 logo) in the name of Le Hoang Diep Thao (the registered owner) on the grounds that the applicant was the first user and lawful owner of the G7 logo and that the following applied:

  • Use of the G7 logo would be likely to deceive or confuse given the applicant’s common law rights in the G7 logo.

  • The registered owner’s use of the G7 logo is contrary to New Zealand law because it would constitute passing off and would amount to a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

  • The applicant is the true owner of the G7 logo and the registered owner is not entitled to claim to be the owner of the logo.

  • The registered owner applied for registration of the G7 logo in bad faith.

The registered owner did not defend the registration. The assistant commissioner (AC) held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of invalidity of the G7 logo on any of the grounds claimed. Thus, the application for a declaration of invalidity was refused.

Evidence submitted by the applicant

To support its application for invalidity, the applicant provided as evidence:

  • printouts of website pages for www.vietnamesecoffee.co.nz (allegedly the applicant’s New Zealand website);

  • representations of packaging containing some form of the stylised G7 logo;

  • seven customer comments relating to its coffee products;

  • references to a physical delivery address for coffee in Te Awamutu; and

  • references to New Zealand telephone numbers.

Evidence not sufficiently reliable or probative

The AC held that the evidence provided did not make out a prima facie case for invalidity and identified the following main evidentiary issues:

  • According to the applicant, www.vietnamesecoffee.co.nz was the website of its New Zealand distributor. However, the distributor was not named, and the applicant provided no evidence of any agreement between itself and www.vietnamesecoffee.co.nz.

  • The applicant did not submit evidence regarding consumer awareness of www.vietnamesecoffee.co.nz.

  • It is not clear whether the products on www.vietnamesecoffee.co.nz were those of the applicant, the registered owner, or a third party.

  • The applicant did not submit any invoices, receipts, sales numbers, advertising spend, number of visitors to the website or other evidence on which the inference of reputation for the G7 logo mark could be made.

  • Although the applicant provided evidence of online customer comments, the comments did not make direct reference to the G7 logo.

  • The statutory declaration did not include a statement that the declarant had personal knowledge of the matters being declared and so had no probative weight.

The AC found that the applicant had not met the onus of establishing a reasonable prima facie case for any of the grounds of invalidity and dismissed the application.

This case reveals the importance of submitting reliable and probative evidence in invalidation proceedings and may serve as a guideline for the type of evidence that will be considered persuasive by IPONZ.



More from across our site

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We have published all the 2022 rankings of the leading firms for patent litigation and protection work
In-house and private practice counsel say UK judges have raised the bar for preliminary injunction requests
António Campinos will serve another five years as EPO president – perhaps he’ll calm unrest at the office in that time
LGBTQ IP lawyers say using rainbow colours and posting solidarity messages on social media must be followed by concrete action
Brand owners bemoan counterfeiters’ latest wheeze and say enforcement authorities should get more involved
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree