Case Summary: Sresta Natural Bio Products Private Limited v Bhimaraju [2024] ATMO 41 (24 MANTRA ORGANIC v MANTRA- LOVE EVERY SPOONFUL)
This decision provides some useful takeaways for Opponents seeking to establish reputational grounds of opposition.
The relevant marks being considered in this case were:
Sresta’s key arguments focussed on establishing that it had established sufficient reputation in connection with the Opponent’s Marks by reason of its importation of food products into Australia. Ultimately, it was not able to prove that the mark had actually been used in the packaging or promotion of the food products it was importing or that the Applicant’s Mark had been adopted in bad faith, and the Applicant’s Mark was permitted to proceed to registration.
S60 (Likelihood of Confusion based on reputation of the Opponent’s Mark)
S62A (Application was filed in bad faith)
Whilst Sresta produced evidence of invoices for sale of food products to Australia, there was no evidence produced showing that the food sold displayed the 24MANTRA mark on labels or packaging.
Accordingly, no reputation in the 24MANTRA mark was established and this ground was unsuccessful.
No evidence demonstrating any knowledge of the Opponent’s mark by the Applicant was produced.
There were also significant differences between the marks and the only commonality was the word MANTRA.
Therefore, there was no evidence showing the Applicant had acted in an unscrupulous, underhanded or unconscientious manner in selecting this mark, and accordingly this ground also failed.
