Mediaquest v Registrar
It turns out that the Registrar does have power to undo an assignment of a registered trade mark that has been registered wrongly.
A Mr Brailsford was the registered owner of the Peel Away trade mark for paint stripping preparations, TM No. 741047. He died in 2008.
On 23 Setember 2010, trade mark attorney McInnes filed an application to register an assignment of the trade mark to Mediaquest.
On 8 October 2010, the Registrar registered the assignment and Mediaquest became the owner of TM No. 741047.
On 12 November 2010, trade mark attorney Wilson wrote to the Registrar complaining about the registration of the assignment without notification to him and challenging it. Mr Wilson was acting for Mr Brailsford’s heirs and had been the address for service entered in the Register when the application to register the assignment was lodged.
On 22 November 2010, the Registrar wrote to Mr McInness stating that the documentation relied on to establish the assignment was inadequate and so the Registrar intended to cancel the registration of assignment pursuant to s 81. Mediaquest objected to this and pointed out, amongst other things, that it had withdrawn a pending non-use action once the assignement was registered.
Further correspondence took place and, in due course, a hearing at which the delegate concluded Mediaquest had not established its entitlement to be registered as the assignee. Mediaquest appealed.
On appeal, Emmett J held that:
1 Mediaquest was not entitled to an assignment; and
2 the Registrar did have power to cancel the registration of the assignment.
Mediaquest claimed it had an assignment from CRT. Mr Brailsford was the president and a director of CRT. Mediaquest sought to argue that his registration of TM No 741047 in Australia was in breach of his duties to CRT as a director and consequently the trade mark belonged in equity to CRT and, as a result of an assignment from CRT to Mediaquest, to it.
It seems Mr Brailsford may well have coined the mark and used it in the USA. At one point, the US mark was owned by another of Mr Brailsford’s companies, Pilgrim. In November 1992, Pilgrim assigned all its rights to Mr Brailsford and, in August 1993, Mr Brailsford assigned all his (US) rights to CRT. It was after this, in 1997, that Mr Brailsford applied to register what became TM No. 741047 in Australia in his own name. In 1998, CRT applied to register a patent in the UK, identifying Mr Brailsford as the inventor and claiming entitlement through agreement with him.
Emmett J found Mr Brailsford was entitled to register TM No. 741047 in his own name:
- CRT was clearly the owner of the US trade marks;
- both Pilgrim and CRT were creatures of Mr Bailsford;
- while CRT was incorporated in Jersey in the Channel Islands, there was no evidence that it had ever traded anywhere other than in the USA or the UK.
The contention advanced on behalf of Mediaquest is that Mr Brailsford acquired the opportunity to register the Peel Away Mark in Australia by reason of his being a director of CRT. However, that can only be an inference. The circumstance that Mr Brailsford had dealings with the Peel Away mark before CRT was incorporated gives rise to a contrary inference. That is to say, it does not necessarily follow that the opportunity of registering the Peel Away mark in Australia was one that came to Mr Brailsford by reason of his being a director of CRT. Rather, an inference is at least available, and may perhaps be more easily drawn, that CRT acquired whatever opportunity it had to exploit the Peel Away Mark, and associated technology and knowhow, because Mr Brailsford chose to make it available to CRT. (emphasis supplied)
In these circumstances, his Honour concluded at  that the opportunity to register the trade mark in Australia did not come Mr Brailsford’s way because of his role in CRT and so CRT was not entitled to the trade mark in equity.
Power to cancel
Section [88(2)(e)] provides a power to rectify the Register on the basis that an entry in the Register “was made, or has previously been amended, as a result of fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation.” This power, however, is conferred on the Court, not the Registrar.
Emmett J noted that under s 109 and s 110 the Registrar only had power to register an assignment of a trade mark. Whether there had been a valid assignment was a jurisdictional fact and, if there had not been a valid assignment, there was no power to register the assignment. In such a case, therefore, the Registrar had power to cancel the erroneous entry. As a result at :
There was no actual assignment of the Registered Mark to Mediaquest, either from Mr Brailsford or from his executors. Accordingly, the Registrar’s decision of 8 October 2010 to record the assignment in the Register was tainted by jurisdictional error and was no decision at all. It was therefore open to the Registrar to reconsider whether the duty imposed by s 110 had been enlivened, by revisiting the question of whether there was an actual assignment or transmission of the Registered Mark to Mediaquest. Having determined that there was no actual assignment or transmission, it was open to the Registrar to take steps to cancel the earlier action. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that a decision of the Registrar under Part 10 that was affected by jurisdictional error should continue to have legal effect. Indeed the considerations outlined above suggest the contrary.
In answer to Mediaquest’s concerns about the uncertainty this would give rise, Emmett J pointed out at  that:
the scheme of the Act is not proprietorship by registration but registration of proprietorship. Registration under the Act is only prima facie evidence of ownership, as is provided by s 210. The registered owner is always susceptible to action being taken under Part 8 to revoke a trade mark that should never have been registered, or to substitute the true owner of the trade mark for that of a wrongful claimant. True ownership of a trade mark is a defence to infringement proceedings brought under the Act.
That is, registration was only prima facie evidence of ownership. Accordingly, all registrations were subject to an inherent level of uncertainty.
One interesting aspect of his Honour’s approach is that it does not appear to be based on the power conferred by s 81. Rather, it seems to have a much more fundamental underpinning in “jurisdictional error”.
No doubt, there is a sense here that the Court is not interested in technicalities that would force all of these types of disputes to be brought before it rather than knocked on the head in the Office. One might wonder, however, why the Registrar does not require documentation signed by the assignor as well as the assignee in the first place. This may well become more of an issue with the recordal of security interests as the Registrar’s practice is apparently to allow an interest to be recorded by the person claiming to have taken out a security interest alone.
Mediaquest Communications LLC v Registrar of Trade Marks  FCA 768
- At the moment, as a result of Emmett J’s decision, Mr Brailsford is shown as the owner, but (presumably) Mr McInnes’ firm is shown as the address for service. ?
- It is not clear from the judgment whether the agreement was in terms limited expressly to the US rights or this is an inference from the limited rights then existing. ?
- The nature of the agreement is not specified in the judgment. ?