Ainsworth Game Technology Limited v IGT, a Nevada Corporation

This matter came before the court concerning oppositions filed by Ainsworth Game Technology Limited (Ainsworth) against applications by IGT, a Nevada Corporation (IGT) for the registration of the trade mark "MULTIWAY" in plain script. Ainsworth opposed these applications on various grounds.

The primary legal issue before the court was the admissibility and probative value of evidence tendered by IGT, specifically a statutory declaration by Amy Denise Reynolds which annexed earlier statutory declarations by Anthea Gilmore. Ainsworth objected to this evidence, arguing that it constituted hearsay and should not be given weight regarding the distinctiveness of the "MULTIWAY" mark. The court was required to determine whether the evidence was admissible and, if so, what weight it should be afforded in the context of the trade mark opposition proceedings.

The court considered the objection to the admissibility of the Reynolds declaration. It was noted that the declaration served as a vehicle for introducing Gilmore's earlier declarations, which IGT relied upon in the opposition. The court also referenced Regulation 21.15(8) of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995, which states that the Registrar is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform themselves in any way they reasonably believe to be appropriate. Furthermore, the court drew upon the principle established in *Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese* (2000) 51 IPR 134, that an administrative decision-maker should not ignore relevant material when discharging their statutory duty, and therefore, evidence bearing upon the question of registration should not be disregarded.