Carole Anne Bunter v SecureView Australia Pty Ltd

Carole Anne Bunter, the opponent, opposed the registration of the trade mark "Secureview" by SecureView Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant. The opposition was heard by Iain Thompson, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The opponent contended that the trade mark should not be registered, primarily relying on grounds available under section 58 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark should be refused registration under section 58 of the Act. This section concerns the registration of a trade mark that is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to a trade mark that has been used in Australia by another person in relation to goods or services for which the trade mark is to be registered, and that other person has, in good faith, used that trade mark in Australia.

The delegate considered the evidence presented by both parties, particularly the statutory declarations. The opponent provided evidence that she had been manufacturing and selling fly screens, window screens, and screen doors since approximately 1984 under the business name Buzzoff Flyscreens Security & Screening Systems. Crucially, she deposed that in approximately January 2004, she coined the name "Secureview" for a new type of security door product made from galvanised stainless steel mesh. She further provided evidence of preparing designs, obtaining mesh samples, creating sample products, and placing an order for mesh in August 2005, all in connection with the "Secureview" mark. An invoice dated 15 May 2005 was exhibited, showing a sale of a security screen product under the "Secureview" name. The opponent asserted continuous use of the name and mark "Secureview" since approximately May 2005. Based on this evidence, the delegate found that the opponent had established use of the "Secureview" mark in Australia in good faith for security screen products prior to the applicant's filing date.

Consequently, the delegate refused to register the applicant's trade mark application. Costs were awarded against the applicant on the official scale.