Cordon Bleu International LTEE v Renaud Cointreau & CIE and Le Cordon Bleu B.V.

This matter concerned an opposition by Cordon Bleu International Ltee to trade mark application no 474808 for the mark CORDON BLEU. The opponents, Renaud Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu B.V., sought extensions of time to serve evidence in support of their oppositions. The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was required to determine whether to grant these further extensions.

The legal issues before the delegate were whether the opponents had made out a proper case justifying the requested extensions, whether sufficient reasons had been provided for the delay, the relative inconvenience to the parties, and the public interest. The applicant argued that the opponents had already had ample time to prepare their evidence, had not acted diligently, and that the reasons provided were insufficient. The opponents contended that complex international proceedings and communication difficulties, coupled with intertwined Australian oppositions, had caused unavoidable delays, and that they would complete their evidence within the requested extension.

The delegate reasoned that while the opponents had requested multiple extensions, the reasons provided, particularly the newly elaborated investigations, were more specific than in previous requests and met the requirements for informing the Registrar of progress. The delegate accepted the opponents' explanation of difficulties arising from prosecuting numerous concurrent oppositions in different countries with attorneys lacking extensive Australian trade mark law experience. The delegate found that the inconvenience to the applicant was not substantial and unspecified, and that the public interest favoured allowing all parties to fully present their cases, especially given the potential for deception and confusion. The delegate also noted that the total period of eighteen months for evidence service was not excessive in comparison to other cases.

The delegate granted the opponents' applications for extensions of time, setting the final date for lodging evidence in support as 21 April 1996. The delegate emphasised that any further requests for extensions beyond this date would be viewed with great concern and would likely not succeed except in exceptional circumstances. No award of costs was made as no party had applied for them.