Capital Safety Group EMEA v Classic Supplies Pty Ltd

This matter came before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning an opposition by Capital Safety Group EMEA (the Applicant) to the registration of a trade mark by Classic Supplies Pty Ltd (the Opponent). The Applicant had filed evidence in answer, which it claimed contained commercially sensitive information. The Opponent subsequently filed evidence in reply, asserting that the entirety of the information disclosed therein was confidential.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was how to determine the opposition, given the Opponent's broad claim of confidentiality over its evidence and the Applicant's more general assertion of commercial sensitivity regarding its own evidence. The delegate was required to decide whether to refuse or register the trade mark, having regard to the grounds of opposition and the evidence filed by the parties, while also considering the implications of the confidentiality claims.

The delegate adopted the approach taken in *Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd*, reasoning that it was not possible to decide the matter without discussing the evidence filed in support of the opposition. The delegate noted that the onus was on the Opponent to establish its claim of confidentiality. As neither party had requested a hearing, the delegate proceeded to make a decision based on the written record, which included the evidence filed by both parties and the Applicant's written submissions. The delegate treated the Applicant and its parent company, the 3M Company, as a single opponent for the purposes of the decision.