BEC Australia Ltd v Brisbane Export Holdings Pty Ltd

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS

Re:Opposition by BEC Australia Limited to registration of trade mark application numbers 2076120 (class 35) – BEC - and 2076128 (class 35) – BEC and device - in the name of Brisbane Export Holdings Pty Ltd.

Delegate:

Nicole Worth

Representation:

Opponent: BEC Australia Limited

Applicant: Brisbane Export Holdings Pty Ltd

Decision:

2024 ATMO 86

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – grounds of opposition under ss 44, 60, 42 and 43 – ground under s 44 established – honest concurrent use or prior continuous use not established – provisions of ss 44(3)(a) or 44(4) not applied - registration refused.

Background

This decision is in respect of an opposition under s 52 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Act’) by BEC Australia Limited (‘Opponent’) to registration of the trade marks detailed below (collectively the ‘Trade Marks’), in the name of Brisbane Export Holdings Pty Ltd (‘Applicant’).

Trade Mark:	BEC (‘Word Mark’)	(‘Composite Mark’)
Application Number:	2076120	2076128
Filing Date:	17 March 2020	17 March 2020
Services:	Class 35. Full specification of services at Appendix A.

The Trade Marks were examined as required by s 33 of the Act and accepted for possible registration under the provisions of s 44(4). Their acceptance was advertised in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks on 1 September 2021. The Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose their registration on 1 November 2021 followed by a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) on 1 December 2021. The Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 14 March 2022.
The Opponent filed evidence in support of its opposition on 16 June 2022 and the Applicant filed evidence in answer on 23 September 2022, described in more detail below. The Opponent did not file evidence in reply, and once notified that the time for filing evidence had finished, the Applicant requested a hearing by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed its written submissions, prepared by IP Wealth Pty Ltd, on 25 January 2024. The Opponent did not file written submissions.
The matter has now been allocated to me to decide, in my capacity as a delegate of the Registrar of Trad Marks. This is my decision, based upon the documents and evidence identified above.
Any references to parts, sections or regulations, below, are references to parts, sections or regulations of the Act or the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) (‘Regulations’), unless otherwise indicated.

Evidence

The evidence filed in this matter comprises declarations by the following persons:
Evidence in support
Michelle Gorton, Lawyer and Principal of Gorton IP, with Annexures MG-1 to MG-10, dated 16 June 2022 (‘Gorton’).
Evidence in answer
Brett Antonio, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of BEC Feed Solutions Pty Ltd (a company for which the Applicant is the holding company of assets including intellectual property), with Exhibits BA-1 to BA-27, dated 21 September 2022 (‘Antonio’).
A summary of the evidence is as follows.
Of the Opponent, Gorton states:
BEC Australia Limited is a not-for-profit organization whose primary role is to support and grow the national network of Business Enterprise Centres who assist SMEs. It is the National peak body for small businesses…
BEC Australia Limited is a national network of Business Enterprise Centres which offers business advice and support to small and micro businesses in Australia under the BEC logo trade mark…BEC Australia Limited commenced operating in the eastern states of Australia in the 1980’s and grew each year.
BEC Australia Limited’s network is comprised of individually incorporated non-for-profit organisations that are located in at least 35 locations around Australia…
The services provided by BEC Australia Limited under the BEC Logo Trade Mark include, but are not limited to, mentoring support, business analysis, business information, training programs, business referrals, assistance with Government Grants and business networking.[1]
[1] Gorton, [3]-[6].
The Opponent is the owner of Australian trade mark registration 702039, detailed below.
Trade Mark: (‘Opponent’s Trade Mark’)
Filing Date: 7 February 1996
Services:Class 35: Services in the provision of information and advice in relation to business management and organisation
The Opponent has also operated a website at ‘ since 2009, of which ‘captures’ from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine are in evidence, dating between 2009 and 2021. They show use of the Opponent’s Trade Mark upon each captured page.[2]
[2] Gorton, MG-5.
An undated example of the inclusion of the Opponent’s Trade Mark in an email signature is in evidence,[3] and various undocumented uses of the Opponent’s Trade Mark are asserted including upon invoices, business cards, information booklets, clothing and signage.
[3] Ibid, MG-6.
The Opponent has had Facebook and Twitter accounts since 2012, current pages of which are in evidence (as at the time of the Gorton declaration) that show creation dates in 2012.[4] It also operates a YouTube channel which is declared to have been created in 2013. The Opponent’s social media channels all have modest amounts of followers.
[4] Ibid, MG-7 and MG-8.
Lastly, a range of business articles written by advisors working for the Opponent are in evidence dated between 2015 to 2021. Each of them is headed with the Opponent’s Trade Mark.
The Applicant is the holding company of BEC Feed Solutions Pty Ltd (formerly Brisbane Export Corporation Pty Ltd) (‘BEC’). The Applicant is the owner of several Australian trade mark registrations in respect of animal feeds, veterinary products and related consulting services, as follows:

Antonio says the following of BEC:
In 1985, the Company was established as BRISBANE EXPORT CORPORATION PTY LTD (former company name) by the owner and founder, Richard Reeder.
The Business has been known as BEC FEED SOLUTIONS / BEC FEED and subsequently shorted to BEC (pronounced as the individual letter acronym B-E-C for full word BEC) ever since.
…
The Business offers an unparalleled range of livestock feed and animal nutrition goods and services associated thereto (Goods or Services; collectively, Goods and Services), and is involved in servicing a wide customer base including all intensive and extensive livestock customers along with the companion and equine animal markets.
The Business’s Services offered under/in association with the Trade Marks also includes assisting businesses who operate in or are associated with the animal, stock, animal feed, and/or animal nutrition industries. These services include:
a)   commodity trading;
b)   procurement services;
c)   director, management, accounting, and human resources services; and
d)   regulatory and welfare, health, safety and environment services.
The commodity trading provided by the Business includes a separate division which sources, stores, transports, and supplies oils, vegetables and animal protein meals needed by intensive livestock producers and commercial feed mills.
Due to the longstanding reputation of the Trade Marks, many of the Business’s clientele will contact the Business to provide them with business services, management consultancy, nutrition consultancy, and vitamin premix (VPC) clinics. The technical team employed at the Business provides technical and nutritional advice to the Business’s customers, from premix and feed formulation through to direct farm advice. This advice includes business management and operational advice due to the broad nature of on farm factors and challenging trading factors of farming.
…
The Business has been continuously using the Trade Marks since 1985 on/in relation to the Goods and Services.[5]
[5] Antonio, [8]-[20].
According to Antonio, BEC has grown into a global business with operations in Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia and has suppliers in every continent. In Australia it ranks as the number 4 ‘Premix Supplier’ and in the top 5 ‘Feed Additive and Traded Ingredient Suppliers’.
Turnover figures are provided in relation to ‘Goods branded with the Trade Marks’ for the financial years 2009/2010 to 2021/2022, showing moderate revenue in each of the years.[6] Turnover figures are also provided for ‘the BEC group’ in respect of ‘the Goods and Services’ (as defined by Antonio, cited in paragraph [17] above). The ‘BEC group’ is not precisely defined but appears to include BEC, the Applicant, unnamed joint ventures and BEC subsidiaries in Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. The figures represent very significant revenue.[7]
[6] Ibid [32].
[7] Ibid [33].
Sample invoices and an email in respect of the provision of services are in evidence.[8] Some invoices display the Composite Mark[9] and are issued by BEC Feed Solutions Pty Ltd. They describe the services rendered variously as ‘consulting’, ‘consulting fees for the period [date range]’, ‘Intellectual Property Search’, ‘Intellectual Property Reg’n’, ‘Quickbooks Software’ and ‘RECHARGE CHEP INV’. The remaining invoices are all issued to BEC for ‘service for period [date range]’, some of which give additional details relating to workshops, conferences or a farm visit. The email relates to the provision of accounting services by a member of BEC, although it is not clear whether these services were provided in the course of trade or to a related entity. There is no information relating to payment for the service(s) provided.
[8] Ibid, Exhibit BA-03.
[9] It is declared that when originally issued, the sample invoices would have shown the previous device mark as depicted in registration 1425623 shown in the table at paragraph [16] of this decision. The Composite Mark is shown because of the Applicant’s current enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.
Further sample invoices are provided in respect of the sale of goods, primarily animal feeds.[10] They display the Composite Mark (or the composite mark containing also the words FEED SOLUTIONS) and are issued by BEC Feed Solutions Pty Ltd.
[10] Antonio, Exhibit BA-04.
Antonio declares that BEC’s customers ‘include the entire intensive and extensive livestock industry throughout Australia including all companion animal and equine segments…’ and exhibited to the declaration is BEC’s customer list, comprising a commercially significant number of customers.[11]
[11] Ibid, Exhibit BA-05.
Antonio further states:
In addition to customers who purchase the Business’s pre-mixed feed, the Business caters to customers that require custom-made livestock feeds that the Business’s skilled commodity trading team can procure and prepare to meet the customer’s needs.
BEC is declared to have maintained websites in relation to its business since 2005 and ‘captures’ of its websites from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine date back to 2007.[12] Other ‘captures’ dating back to 2008 contain information relating to BEC’s commodity trading and feed commodities.[13] They state variously:
BEC Feed Solutions has a competent, established and well recognized commodity trading team that covers many areas of agribusiness. The team has specialists in key areas, but at the same time offers technical and market information on an array of commodities. Our traders are ably supported by experienced and efficient logistics personnel.
…
Our Australian based commodity trading division source, store, transport and supply oils, vegetable and animal protein meals needed by intensive livestock producers and commercial feed mills. These commodities are competitively priced, due to our bulk purchasing power and insight into market movements.
…
The Australian based commodity trading division source, store, transport and supply oils, vegetable and animal protein meals needed by intensive livestock producers and commercial feed mills.
Our skilled and experienced commodity trading team offer product that is competitively priced, due to our bulk purchasing power and finger on the pulse of market movements.
[12] Ibid, Exhibit BA-14.
[13] Ibid, Exhibit BA-07.
Distribution agreements, service agreements, commercial agreements, confidentiality deeds and toll manufacturing agreements between BEC and third parties are in evidence.[14] The third parties are manufacturers, livestock or dairy cattle specialists, producers, distributors, consultants and feed product specialists. The agreements relate primarily to the distribution of goods by BEC of products provided to them as part of various manufacturing or sourcing arrangements, or to the provision of services to BEC such as consulting, marketing and distribution of products provided by BEC.
[14] Ibid, Exhibits BA-08 and BA-09.
BEC undertakes various forms of advertising, marketing and promotion. Figures for total advertising, marketing and promotional expenditure for the years 2009/2010 to 2019/2020 are in significant amounts.[15] Evidence of advertising and promotion includes a list of payments made by BEC in relation to its website and sponsorship of events, example brochures and pamphlets, images of signage, screenshots of BEC’s various social media channels (the earliest declared to have been established in 2013), articles which feature the Composite Mark or the name BEC Feed Solutions, stationery and merchandise.[16] Related to its marketing and promotion is BEC’s participation in, sponsorship of or conduct of numerous events, exhibitions and trade shows, conferences and presentations.[17]
[15] Ibid [51].
[16] Ibid, Exhibits BA-10 to BA-19, BA-25, BA-26.
[17] Ibid, Exhibits BA-20 to BA-24.
The Applicant was unaware of the Opponent until the Opponent’s Trade Mark was raised as a barrier to acceptance during the examination process of the subject Trade Marks. Antonio states ‘the Business was not aware of the Opponent and the Opponent’s Registration until it had been trading concurrently with the Opponent for 26 years’. The Applicant requested consent from the Opponent, however the Opponent declined and so the Applicant filed evidence of use. The subject Trade Marks were accepted under the provisions of s 44(4); that is, under provisions allowing acceptance on the basis of prior continuous use of the Trade Marks. Thereafter the opposition as described at the beginning of this decision unfolded.

Grounds of Opposition, Onus and Standard of Proof

In its SGP, the Opponent nominated grounds of opposition under ss 44, 60, 42 and 43.
The Opponent bears the onus of proof.[18] To succeed in its opposition the Opponent must establish at least one of the grounds of opposition. The relevant standard is the ordinary civil standard based on the balance of probabilities.[19] The rights of the parties are to be determined as at the date of the application [20] which is generally, but not always, the filing date.[21] Here the relevant date is the filing date, being 17 March 2020.
[18] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).
[19] Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).
[20] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82, [4] (Kitto J).
[21] See ss 6, 12, and 72.
As will become evident, I have found it necessary to address only the ground of opposition under s 44.

Section 44

Section 44 relevantly provides (notes omitted):
44 Identical etc. trade marks
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), an application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of services (applicant’s services) must be rejected if:
(a) it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:
(i) a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar services or closely related goods; or
(ii) a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar services or closely related goods is being sought by another person; and
(b) the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s services is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar services or closely related goods.
…
(3) If the Registrar in either case is satisfied:
(a) that there has been honest concurrent use of the 2 trade marks; or
(b) that, because of other circumstances, it is proper to do so;
the Registrar may accept the application for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark subject to any conditions or limitations that the Registrar thinks fit to impose. If the applicant’s trade mark has been used only in a particular area, the limitations may include that the use of the trade mark is to be restricted to that particular area.
(4) If the Registrar in either case is satisfied that the applicant, or the applicant and the predecessor in title of the applicant, have continuously used the applicant’s trade mark for a period:
(a) beginning before the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of:
(i) the similar goods or closely related services; or
(ii) the similar services or closely related goods; and
(b) ending on the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark;
the Registrar may not reject the application because of the existence of the other trade mark.
In order to establish the ground of opposition under s 44 the Opponent must identify a trade mark that has an earlier priority date than the Trade Marks, that is in respect of closely related goods or similar services to the Trade Marks, and that is substantially identical or deceptively similar to one or both of the Trade Marks. The Opponent relies upon its registered trade mark identified as the Opponent’s Trade Mark for this purpose.
The Applicant does not contest that the Opponent’s Trade Mark is a valid basis for the establishment of s 44(2). I confirm that the Opponent’s Trade Mark has an earlier priority date than that of the Trade Marks. On the face of it the Opponent’s class 35 services, being ‘services in the provision of information and advice in relation to business management and organisation’, are similar to at least the following of the Applicant’s specified services:

Business information agency services
Commercial information agencies
Business consultancy and advisory services, namely assisting with the formation, negotiation, and management of contracts between businesses and third parties
Business acquisitions, advice, assistance, auditing, consultancy and appraisals
Business planning and referrals services
Business management and assistance including facilitating business contracts and commercial contractual arrangements
Business management organisation consultancy
Business management, assistance and consultancy
Consultancy relating to business management and document management
Business management
Business management and consultancy including management of a retail enterprise for others
commercial or industrial management assistance
business evaluation services
benchmarking (evaluation of business organisation practices)
business advice, assistance and consultancy relating to franchising
business franchising consultancy and business support services
management advisory services related to franchising
providing information, advice and consultancy in relation to all the aforesaid services.

The Opponent’s Trade Mark is also deceptively similar to both the Word Mark and the Composite Mark. When the impressions of the parties’ trade marks are compared in terms of the test set out in Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd,[22] bearing in mind that the recollection of the earlier mark may be imperfect,[23] the result is one of likely confusion amongst the relevant notional market. The letters BEC are an essential feature of both parties’ marks, are not diminished in any of the trade marks, and have no obvious descriptive meaning or common usage which may discount their distinctiveness in the trade marks.
[22] [1963] HCA 66, [13].
[23] Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd [1945] 1 All ER 34.

The Applicant’s submissions in terms of s 44 are primarily in relation to whether the provisions of ss 44(3)(a) or 44(4) apply, which, respectively, relate to honest concurrent use or prior continuous use of a substantially identical or deceptively similar trade mark. The Act tolerates a degree of similarity between trade marks by way of these provisions, summarised in Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Community First Credit Union Limited as follows:
The scheme in s 44 of the TM Act is broadly directed to ensure that the Register is not cluttered by deceptively similar trade marks owned by different traders in respect of similar goods or services. In this context, s 44(1)-(2) provides for the assessment of a trade mark or application with an earlier priority date than the opposed application. However, the TM Act tolerates a degree of concurrent usage of deceptively similar marks in the circumstances set out in s 44(3)-(4). Section 44(3)(a) enables parallel registration where there has been honest concurrent use of the two trade marks. Section 44(3)(b) provides liberty for the Registrar to determine that, because of enigmatic “other circumstances” it is proper to accept the registration. Section 44(4) enables registration where the Registrar is satisfied that there has been continuous use of the trade mark the subject of the application since before the priority date of the blocking mark.[24]
[24] [2021] FCAFC 31, [226] (Middleton, Burley and Thawley JJ).
As a preliminary matter, I take note of the Applicant’s submission that it is the holding company of BEC and that BEC is an authorised user of the Trade Marks and has a unity of purpose with the Applicant. Whilst I do not think the point is necessarily proven, I will assume for the time being that BEC is an authorised user within the meaning of s 8 of the Act, placing its case at its highest, and revisit the issue if necessary.
Turning then to the Applicant’s evidence of use, I cannot be satisfied that it has established continuous use of either of its Trade Marks which commenced prior to the priority of the Opponent’s Trade Mark (being 7 February 1996). The Antonio declaration states that BEC was established in 1985 and began using names comprising or containing BEC at that time. However, this amounts to bare assertion. There is no supporting evidence for this statement: none of the exhibits date earlier than 2007, nor do any of the monetary figures relate to a period prior to 2009. I note further that evidence relating to the many and varied services specified in class 35 is limited. There is simply no evidence relating to a number of services, such as:
·‘product launch services’,
·‘the bringing together, for the benefit of others, a variety of goods (excluding transport thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the goods’, ‘livestock sales and auctioneering services’,
·‘radio and television advertising’,
·‘organisation, operation, management and supervision of customer loyalty programmes and schemes, and discount card loyalty schemes’,
·‘business advertising services relating to franchising’,
·‘business franchising services (group purchasing, group advertising)’, or
·‘management advisory services related to franchising’.
Rather, the majority of the Applicant’s evidence relates to animal feeds and the sourcing and distribution of those products. Whilst it does appear that the Applicant provides some services which may be in the nature of the services claimed in class 35, primarily ‘commodity trading’ (to use the description appearing on the Applicant’s website), the earliest documented evidence of such service being offered is 2007.[25]
[25] Being the first website ‘capture’ shown in Atonio, Exhibit BA-14 which mentions ‘commodity trading’.
In support of the application of s 44(4) the Applicant also states:
The Applicant notes that the acronym was so widely used, and the Company gained so much reputation in it, that in 2006 the company actually changed its name to BEC FEED SOLUTIONS PTY LTD to unify the name of the company with the name in which so much reputation had accrued.
However, I am not persuaded that I can infer from this that the letters BEC were used continuously by the Applicant prior to 7 February 1996 (the priority date of the Opponent’s Trade Mark) in respect of the specified services. A change of name 10 years after the requisite time is not a sufficient basis upon which to draw this conclusion, especially given the lack of evidence pertaining to the services in question.
As to honest concurrent use, I am satisfied that the BEC adopted its Trade Marks honestly[26] and I accept its submission that it is unaware of any confusion with the Opponent in its long period of co-existence in the marketplace.
[26] In accordance with the often-cited six criteria for establishing honest concurrent use, derived from John Fitton & Co Ltd’s Application (1949) 66 RPC 110 and cited in numerous court decisions such as PB Foods Ltd v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd [1999] FCA 1602 (Carr J).
The evidence shows BEC to have operated primarily in the animal feed market. Those services for which some evidence of use is shown appear to be directly related to the provision of animal feed, as indicated by the various descriptions of BEC’s ‘commodity trading’ services cited in paragraph [22] of this decision and by the nature of the various commercial contracts it has entered into with third parties.[27] Other evidence relating to the provision of services by the Applicant is ambiguous. The invoices for services provided by (and possibly to) BEC[28] refer to ‘consulting’ and ‘services’, but it is not clear that these are business services or some other type of service (such as those specified in class 44 of the Applicant’s trade mark registration 1425626). The turnover figures relate either to goods or to the undefined ‘BEC group’ with no precise explanation of what has generated its turnover. Similarly, total advertising and promotional expenditure is provided and there is no indication of what proportion of it may have been in respect of the provision of the specified services in class 35.
[27] Shown in Antonio, Exhibits BA-08 and BA-09.
[28] In Antonio, Exhibit BA-03.
I consider it likely that there is no evidence of confusion between the parties because the Applicant does not provide the majority of the general business services it specifies in class 35. The Applicant does not make any submissions regarding amendments or limitations to its specification of services. There are potentially many fine distinctions between the services actually reflected in the evidence and those not reflected, and between services specified in the Opponent’s Trade Mark and services specified by the Applicant. For example, it is not clear to what extent ‘commodity trading’ would be reflected in/by ‘business acquisitions, advice, assistance, auditing, consultancy and appraisals’ (specified by the Applicant), or to what degree it coincides with ‘information and advice in relation to business management and organisation’ (specified by the Opponent).
Where there are potentially so many fine distinctions, it is not appropriate that the delegate determine which services ought to be excised without an applicant making a case. In that case the Registrar’s delegates may follow the approach of Yates J in Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks[29] and refuse the application in its entirety. I consider this the appropriate course of action in the subject opposition, and so I have not suggested amendments to the Applicant’s specification of services.
[29] [2014] FCA 1304, [232].
Accordingly, neither ss 44(3)(a) or 44(4) are established.

Decision and costs

Section 55 relevantly provides:
55 Decision
(1) Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:
(a) to refuse to register the trade mark; or
(b)to register the trade mark (with or without conditions or limitations) in respect of the goods and/or services then specified in the application;
having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the application was opposed has been established.
I have found that the Opponent has established the ground of opposition under s 44, and the Applicant not established that the provisions of either ss 44(3)(a) or 44(4) apply. As a delegate of the Registrar, I accordingly refuse to register the Trade Marks.
The Applicant sought an award of costs in its favour. However, it is the Opponent that has succeeded. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Accordingly, in respect of the opposition to trade mark 2076120 I award costs against the Applicant under s 221 in line with the relevant amounts in Schedule 8 of the Regulations. For the opposition to trade mark 2076128 I award costs against the Applicant under s 221, to be taxed in the same manner as Hume Industries (Malaysia) Berhad v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd.[30]
[30] [2001] ATMO 78 (Hearing Officer Williams).

Nicole Worth

Hearing Officer

Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks

1 May 2024

APPENDIX A

Applicant’s services in Class 35:

Arranging of contractual trade services for others; business negotiation of contracts (for others); negotiation of business contracts and procurement of contracts (for others); business information agency services; commercial information agencies; negotiation and conclusion or settlement of commercial transactions for third parties; business consultancy and advisory services, namely assisting with the formation, negotiation, and management of contracts between businesses and third parties; business management consultancy, advisory and administration assistance, namely, arranging of buying and selling contracts for third parties and arranging of trading transactions and commercial contracts for others; business acquisitions, advice, assistance, auditing, consultancy and appraisals; negotiations of business contracts for others; negotiation and conclusion of commercial transactions for third parties; business negotiations; business networking services and organisation consulting; business planning and referrals services; business representation services; business management and assistance including facilitating business contracts and commercial contractual arrangements; bartering services (facilitating the exchange of goods and services); business assistance including purchasing and procurement services, namely, procuring of contracts for others for the purchase of goods and labour contracting services; business advisory services relating to product development; product launch services; business management; business management organisation consultancy; business management, assistance and consultancy; business project management; consultancy relating to business management and document management; business and commercial information agencies agents' services (business management of food and commodity producers, suppliers, manufacturers and growers of food products and commodities); Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions; promotional services; marketing; retail and wholesale services relating to goods, including but not limited to, stock feed, animal premixes and stock feed commodities; retailing of goods (by any means); the bringing together, for the benefit of others, a variety of goods (excluding the transport thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the goods; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; livestock sales and auctioneering services; discount services (retail, wholesale, and/or sales promotion services), including online; importing and exporting services; exporting services for the exporting of stock feed, animal premixes and stock feed commodities; distribution of goods (not being transport services) (agent, wholesale, representative services, by any means); logistics services (business management and organisation of facilities and resources) (not being transport services); arranging and conducting of exhibitions for advertising, trade and commercial purposes; rental of advertising space and matter; radio and television advertising; arranging of displays and presentations for advertising purposes; telephone, online and computerised ordering of goods; ordering services (for others) including online, mail, and telephone order services; administrative processing of purchase orders; intermediary business services relating to the commercialisation of goods; organisation, operation, management and supervision of customer loyalty programmes and schemes, and discount card loyalty schemes; business management and consultancy including management of a retail enterprise for others; outsourcing and business management of facilities, resources and staff, including call centres and sales staff; business project management for others; commercial or industrial management assistance; business evaluation services; benchmarking (evaluation of business organisation practices); business advertising services relating to franchising; business advice, assistance and consultancy relating to franchising; business management services relating to franchising; business franchising consultancy and business support services; business franchising services (group purchasing, group advertising); management advisory services related to franchising; providing information, advice and consultancy in relation to all the aforesaid services; including provision of all the aforesaid services online, via a website, the internet, global computer networks or other computer networks, by electronic means or wireless technology, or accessible by mobile phones or other Internet-enabled devices.

[2024] ATMO 86

1 May 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Intellectual Property

Commercial Law

Legal Concepts

Costs