The Applicant has sought an award of costs in its favour. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. I accordingly award costs against the Opponent under s 221 of the Act in the relevant amounts under Schedule 8 of the Regulations.

[1] Also known in this decision as the 'relevant date'.

[2] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).

[3] Following Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663; (2006) 70 IPR 599, [6]-[26] (Gyles J), and Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).

[4] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592, 595 (Kitto J), see also Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 29(1).

[5] See Trade Marks Manual of Practice and Procedure, section 51.1, paragraph 1.3.

[6] I note that both parties acknowledge that the declarant was the CEO of the Applicant from 2016 to 2022 and the Applicant's evidence annexes a copy of Ms Holyoak's employment agreement.

Marks Regulations 1995

Spyval Pty. Ltd. atf The Valued Lives Trust v Valued Lives Foundation Ltd [2025] ATMO 58 (18 March 2025)

Spyval Pty. Ltd. atf The Valued Lives Trust v Valued Lives Foundation Ltd [2025] ATMO 58

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)

Spyval Pty. Ltd. atf The Valued Lives Trust v Valued Lives Foundation Ltd [2025] ATMO 58 (18 March 2025)