Circle Internet Financial Limited v Stiftung Concordium

Circle Internet Financial Limited (the opponent) opposed an application by Stiftung Concordium (the applicant) for an extension of protection of an international trade mark registration under section 17A.33 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The opposition was based on grounds under sections 44, 58, 60, and 42(b) of the Act. The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks heard the matter.

The delegate was required to determine whether the opponent had established any of the grounds of opposition. Specifically, the delegate considered whether the applicant's mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to the opponent's earlier trade marks (section 44), whether the applicant was the owner of the mark (section 58), whether the mark was capable of distinguishing goods or services (section 60), and whether the application was bad faith (section 42(b)).

The delegate found that the opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition. In relation to section 44, the delegate concluded that the marks were neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar. The evidence did not support a finding that the applicant was not the owner of the mark under section 58. The delegate also found that the mark was capable of distinguishing the applicant's services under section 60, and that there was no evidence of bad faith under section 42(b).

Consequently, the delegate dismissed the opposition and granted the extension of protection to the applicant.