Australian Olympic Committee, Inc. v PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc

The Australian Olympic Committee, Inc. (the Opponent) opposed an application by PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (the Applicant) for registration of a trade mark. The dispute concerned whether the proposed use of the trade mark would contravene section 36(1) of the *Olympic Insignia Protection Act* (the Act), which prohibits the use of Olympic insignia for commercial purposes without authorisation. The matter was heard by Debrett Lyons, a Hearing Officer of the Trade Marks Hearings.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was to determine whether the Applicant's proposed use of the trade mark would constitute a commercial purpose within the meaning of section 30 of the Act, thereby breaching section 36(1). This required an assessment of the evidence to ascertain if an inference of sponsorship or sponsorship-like support could be drawn, considering existing licensing and sponsorship arrangements. The Hearing Officer was guided by the principle that this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, informed by the specific evidence presented.

The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had satisfied the onus of proof. Evidence was presented demonstrating a broad range of existing licences granted by the Opponent for the use of Olympic insignia in connection with various goods and services. Crucially, the Opponent highlighted a licence agreement with Dulux Australia, which permitted the use of Olympic signs in relation to paints, including decorative and industrial applications. This licence, along with another with General Electric for plastic and silicone products, indicated a pattern of commercial arrangements for the use of Olympic insignia. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Applicant's proposed use of the trade mark would incur a breach of section 36(1) of the Act, and consequently, would be contrary to law under section 42(b).

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused the registration of the Applicant's trade mark application. The Opponent was successful in its opposition and was awarded its costs against the Applicant. The refusal was to take effect one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was notified to the Registrar, in which case the final determination would be subject to further court orders.