Bytedance Ltd v DOL Technology Pte Ltd

This decision concerns an opposition filed by Bytedance Ltd (the Opponent) against an application for an International Registration Designating Australia (IRDA) by DOL Technology Pte Ltd (the Holder). The dispute centred on whether the Holder's proposed trade mark should be registered in Australia, with the Opponent arguing against its registration. The matter was heard by Tracey Berger.

The court was required to determine whether the Opponent had established any of the nominated grounds of opposition, specifically under section 42(b) of the relevant legislation. This section typically relates to grounds such as the mark being deceptive or misleading, or contrary to law. The Opponent sought to rely on evidence, including declarations from a trade marks attorney and a witness statement from an in-house lawyer at TikTok, detailing the extensive use and global reach of the TIKTOK platform and associated services.

The court found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it had nominated. The reasoning applied by the court led to the conclusion that the evidence presented did not satisfy the requirements for opposition under section 42(b). Consequently, the court ordered that the extension of protection for the IRDA could proceed, subject to a one-month waiting period from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was filed. The court also awarded costs against the Opponent.