DJMed Pty Ltd v Promed Health Pty Ltd

[2022] ATMO 90

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS

Re:Oppositions by DJMed Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application numbers 2068962 UBIO (classes 3, 5 & 10) and 2104645 ubio URORGBIO (figurative) (classes 3, 5, 10 & 21) - both in the name of Promed Health Pty Ltd

Delegate:	Tracey Berger
Representation:	Opponent: Self-represented. Applicant: Self-represented.
Decision:	2022 ATMO 90 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – oppositions under section 52 – grounds pursued under sections 44, 58A and 60 – no grounds established - trade marks to proceed to registration

Background

1. This is a decision on the oppositions by DJMed Pty Ltd (‘Opponent’) to registration of the following trade marks in the name of Promed Health Pty Ltd (‘Applicant’):

Trade Mark Number(‘Applications’)	Trade Mark (‘Applicant’s Marks’)	Filing Date (‘Relevant Dates”)	Classes
2068962	UBIO (‘UBIO Mark’)	20 February 2020	3, 5 & 10
2104645	(‘UBIO Logo Mark’)	25 July 2020	3, 5, 10 & 21

Details of the goods covered by the Applications are set out in the Annexure to this decision.

1. As required by the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth),[1] the Applications were examined and accepted for possible registration.  The UBIO Mark was advertised for opposition purposes on 21 July 2020.  The Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose the UBIO Mark on 27 August 2020 and a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) on 28 August 2020.  The Applicant filed Notice of its Intention to Defend the Application from opposition on 9 December 2020. 

   [1] Each reference to a section in these reasons is a reference to a section of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Act’). Each reference to a regulation in these reasons is a reference to a section of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) (‘Regulations’).

2. The UBIO Logo Mark was advertised as accepted on 26 December 2020.  The Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose this mark on 10 February 2021 and an SGP on 2 March 2021.  The Applicant filed Notice of its Intention to Defend the Application from opposition on 5 June 2021.

3. The parties were given the opportunity to file evidence in accordance with the timetable set out in reg 5.14.  The parties filed evidence concluding with the Opponent’s evidence in reply on 8 June 2021 in the opposition to the UBIO Mark and 13 December 2021 in the opposition to the UBIO Logo Mark.

4. The parties were given an opportunity to request a hearing.  The Applicant requested that the matter be decided without a hearing.  This matter was allocated to me to determine in my capacity as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks based on the material filed during the proceedings.

   Grounds and Onus

5. The Opponent nominated grounds of opposition under ss 44, 58A and 60 in the SGPs.

6. The Opponent bears the onus of establishing one or more grounds of opposition[2] on the balance of probabilities.[3]  The rights of the parties are to be determined at the Relevant Date.

   Evidence

   [2] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58 [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).

   [3] Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156 [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).

   Evidence in Support

7. The Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) consists of:

   ·UBIO Mark - Declaration by Sergei Kozak, Director of the Opponent, made on 8 February 2021 with Exhibits 1-15.

   ·UBIO Logo Mark - Declaration by Sergei Kozak made on 24 July 2021 with Exhibits 1-15.

8. The contents of the two declarations of Mr Kozak constituting the EIS are largely identical but for the references to the relevant trade mark.

9. The Opponent attests that it is the owner of Australian trade mark registration number 2066167 Ubio (‘Opponent’s Mark’) registered since 4 February 2020 in class 10 for:

   Air cushions for medical purposes; Anti-decubitus cushions; Cushioned products for medical use; Cushioning devices for medical use; Cushions for medical purposes; Pressure relief cushions; Orthopaedic splints; Splinting bandages for preparing casts; Splinting for orthopaedic use; Splinting materials for medical use; Splints for medical use; Supportive splinting for medical use; Heel pads for orthopaedic use; Heel supports for orthopaedic use; Orthopaedic supports for heels; Ear protecting devices (other than ear plugs); Ear protectors (other than ear plugs); Articles of clothing for support purposes; Back supports for medical purposes; Braces (supports); Foot supports; Slings (supporting bandages); Wrist supports for medical use; Hand exercisers for therapeutic use; Breast protectors for nursing mothers; Laryngectomy protectors; Medical shields for protection from bruising; Nipple protectors for personal use; Protective clothing for medical purposes; Protective guards for catheters; Protective mouth masks for medical use; Protective nose masks for medical use; Anti-decubitus mattresses; Anti-pressure sore mattresses; Mattress covers (incontinence); Mattress pads (incontinence); Mattress protectors (incontinence); Mattress slips (incontinence); Mattresses for hospital patient trolleys; Mattresses for medical use; Medical mattresses; Therapeutic mattresses; Pads for seats for wheelchairs (for medical use); Shaped padding for use with wheelchairs; Absorbent bed sheets for persons prone to incontinence; Apparatus for use in the control of incontinence; Electronic apparatus for the prevention of incontinence; Incontinence sheets; Incontinence sheets for use with babies; Incontinence sheets for use with infants; Medical appliances for use by persons suffering from incontinence; Plastic sheeting for incontinence; Sheets made of rubber for incontinence; Urinary drainage apparatus for use in the management of incontinence; Abdominal belts; Belts for medical purposes; Lumbar belts; Maternity belts; Retaining belts for restraining patients on stretchers; Retention belts; Support belts; Surgical abdominal belts (Opponent’s Goods’).

10. Mr Kozak declares that the Opponent’s Mark has been used in Australia since 2013 for various goods including anti-decubitis cushions, cushioned products for medical use, pressure relief cushions, ear protectors, heel supports for orthopaedic use, amongst other goods.  The Opponent’s Mark is used in advertising, marketing materials, stationery, packaging and merchandising.  Some details of advertising of the Opponent’s Goods and examples of advertising, invoices and products have been provided.

    Evidence in Answer

11. The Evidence in Answer (‘EIA’) comprises the following declarations which are identical but for the references to the opposed trade marks:

    ·UBIO Mark - Declaration Lu Zhi, director of Ode2Breeze Trading Pty Ltd, made on 5 May 2021.

    • UBIO Logo Mark - Declaration of Lu Zhi made on 12 October 2021.

12. The EIA constitutes submissions about the Opponent’s evidence in support of the oppositions and does not provide any information about the adoption or use of the Applicant’s Marks.

    Evidence in Reply

13. The Opponent’s Evidence in Reply (‘EIR’) consists of:

    ·     UBIO Mark- Declaration by Sergei Kozak made on 8 June 2021

    ·     UBIO Logo Mark- Declaration by Sergei Kozak made on 13 December 2021.[4]

    [4] The contents of the declarations are identical but for references to the relevant trade mark.

14. Much of the EIR constitutes submissions in response to the arguments made in the EIA.  However, the Opponent does claim that the volume of the Opponent’s Goods sold are in the 7 figures which is sufficiently high for the Opponent’s Goods to be sold by Harvey Norman, catch.com.au and Kogan.

    Discussion

    Section 44

15. To successfully oppose the Applicant’s Marks pursuant to s 44, the Opponent must establish that a trade mark registered or applied for by a person other than the Applicant:

    ·     has a priority date which is earlier than that of the Trade Marks (‘the first requirement’);

    ·     is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Trade Marks (‘the second requirement’); and

    ·     is in respect of similar goods, and/or services which are closely related to, the Applicant’s goods (‘the third requirement’).

16. In the SGPs, the Opponent relies on the Opponent’s Mark registered from 4 February 2020 for the Opponent’s Goods.  The Opponent’s Mark is in the name of someone other than the Applicant and has an earlier priority date thereby satisfying the first requirement.

    Substantial identity

17. The assessment of substantial identity was identified by Windeyer J in Shell Company of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited as follows:

    In considering whether marks are substantially identical they should, I think, be compared side by side, their similarities and differences noted and the importance of these assessed having regard to the essential features of the registered mark and the total impression of resemblance or dissimilarity that emerges from the comparison.[5]

    [5] [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407, 415.

18. The comparison of the marks in the present case is between:

Opponent’s Mark	UBIO Mark	UBIO Logo Mark
Ubio	UBIO

1. The Opponent’s Mark and Applicant’s UBIO Mark are essentially the same and hence are substantially identical.

2. The UBIO Logo mark contains a butterfly device, a stylised ‘I’ in ubio and the additional element URORGBIO.  On a side by side comparison, there are obvious differences between the two marks such that they are not substantially identical.
   
   

   Deceptive Similarity

3. The test for whether trade marks are deceptively similar is broader than the test for whether they are substantially identical and requires that one trade mark so nearly resembles the other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.[6]

   [6] Act s 10.

4. In determining whether the Opponent’s Mark and the UBIO Logo Mark are deceptively similar, I am guided by the longstanding principles relevant to the assessment of deceptive similarity summarised by the Federal Court in Caterpillar Inc. v Puma SE:[7]

   First, the relevant comparison is between the marks themselves.  The comparison assumes a normal and fair use of the application trade mark for all goods or services covered by the application…

   Second, the test is not a “side-by-side” comparison of the marks.  Deceptive similarity is to be assessed by reference to persons who do not have an opportunity to compare the respective marks side-by-side and who may have an imperfect recollection of the marks…

   Third, while the deception or confusion must result from the similarity in the marks, the likelihood of deception or confusion is to be judged not by the degree of similarity alone but by the effect of the similarity in the circumstances.  Confusion may arise from two word marks in a number of ways. The confusion might arise because of the textual similarity of the words, or because of the phonetic similarity of the words when pronounced, or there may be conceptual confusion where consumers might think that the product bearing the impugned mark is a variant of, or related to, an existing brand…

   Fourth, confusion includes being left in doubt or having cause to wonder.  The creation of an incorrect belief or mental impression and causing confusion “… may go no further than perplexing or mixing up the minds of the purchasing public…”

   Fifth, it is not necessary to establish that confusion is more probable than not; likelihood is established if there is a real risk, that is a finite, non-trivial risk, of confusion.  It is enough if the ordinary person entertains a reasonable doubt…

   Sixth, no intention to deceive or cause confusion is required, although it may nevertheless be a relevant factor to take into account in the evaluation of deceptive similarity if the defendant did have that intention.[8]
   
   

   [7] [2021] FCA 1014, (O’Bryan J).

   [8] Ibid [90]-[96] (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

5. The essential element of each of the trade marks is the element UBIO.  This is the only element of the Opponent’s Mark and the dominant element of the UBIO Logo Mark.  Due to this common element, the marks have some visual and phonetic similarity.  I consider that consumers are likely to be caused to wonder if the two marks are related notwithstanding the addition elements present in the UBIO Logo Mark.  Accordingly, I find that the Opponent’s Mark and UBIO Logo Mark are deceptively similar and hence the second requirement is satisfied.

   Similar Goods

6. I turn now to the final question of whether the Opponent’s Goods are similar to the Applicant’s goods.

7. Two sets of goods are similar if they are the same or of the same description.[9]  In assessing whether goods are of the same description, it is necessary to consider the nature of the goods, their respective uses and the trade channels through which the two sets of goods are bought and sold.[10]

   [9] Act s 14.

   [10] Jellinek’s Application (1946) 63 RPC 59.

8. The goods of the Applications are not identical but the goods of the UBIO Mark are the same or similar as the broader goods claimed for the UBIO Logo Mark.  Accordingly, I will consider the similarity of the goods of the UBIO Logo Mark as compared to the Opponent’s Goods.  Broadly speaking, the UBIO Logo Mark Goods can be categorised as cosmetics and applicators, skin care preparations, personal care products (including medicated goods), laundry preparations and disinfectants; dental preparations, apparatus and instruments; feminine hygiene products, sexual wellness products, sex toys, contraceptives and baby bottles.  The Opponent’s Goods appear to be for rehabilitation or medical treatment being cushioned products for medical use, medical devices and incontinence bedding products.  From the Opponent’s evidence, it appears that the Opponent’s Goods are principally directed to hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities and will be sold to a sophisticated class of consumers.  There is no evidence before me about the trade channels through which the Applicant’s goods will be sold but given the nature of the goods claimed, I assume the goods will be principally sold through pharmacies, supermarkets, stores specialising in sex toys and to dental practices.

9. In my opinion, it is clear that most of the Opponent’s Goods are not similar to the UBIO Logo Mark Goods.  Cosmetics, cosmetic applicators, skin care products, laundry preparations, personal care products, sex toys, contraceptives and baby bottles all have a different nature and purpose to the Opponent’s Goods.  These products of the Applicant are manufactured by different traders and sold through different trade channels, or at least different parts of the same stores, to the Opponent’s Goods.

10. I have considered the similarity of the various incontinence bedding products of the Opponent Goods as compared to the Applicant’s items “female hygiene articles; sanitary preparations for personal hygiene, other than toiletries” and am of the view, that these two sets of goods are not similar.  Incontinence aids such as mattresses and mattress protectors are manufactured by different traders to female hygiene and sanitary preparations and sold to a different class of consumers such as hospitals and nursing homes.  The trade channels for sale also usually differ.  I do not regard these goods as being similar.

11. In addition, the Applicant has claimed various dental apparatus and instruments as well as ultraviolet lamps for medical use.  However, these goods are different from the Opponent’s cushions and devices for medical use in their nature and uses, manufacturers, class of consumers and in general, the trade channels through which they are sold.

12. I am not satisfied that the Opponent’s Goods are similar to the Opponent’s UBIO Logo Goods and hence are not similar to the goods of the UBIO Mark.  Accordingly, the third requirement is not met and as a result, the s 44 ground is not established in respect of either of the Applicant’s Marks.

    Section 58A

13. Section 58A of the Act relevantly provides:

    58A  Opponent’s earlier use of similar trade mark

    (1)  This section applies to a trade mark (section 44 trade mark) the application for registration of which has been accepted because of:

    (a)  subsection 44(4); or

    (b)  a similar provision of the regulations made for the purposes of Part 17A.

    Note:          Subsection 44(4) prevents rejection of an application for registration of a trade mark that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark or a trade mark whose registration is being sought where the first‑mentioned trade mark has been continuously used since before the priority date of the other trade mark.

    (2)  The registration of the section 44 trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the owner of the substantially identical or deceptively similar trade mark (similar trade mark) or the predecessor in title:

    (a)  first used the similar trade mark in respect of:

    (i)  similar goods or closely related services; or

    (ii)  similar services or closely related goods;

    before the owner of the section 44 trade mark or the predecessor in title in relation to the section 44 trade mark first used the section 44 trade mark; and

    (b)  has continuously used the similar trade mark in respect of those goods or services since that first use.

    Note:          For predecessor in title see section 6.
    
    

14. Section 44(4) and reg 4.15A(5) allow a trade mark to be accepted because it has been continuously used since before the priority date of the trade mark with which it is substantially identical or deceptively similar.

15. For s 58A to apply, the trade mark must have been accepted by the examiner under the provisions of s 44(4) or reg 4.15A(5), or a hearing officer finds during an opposition that it is appropriate to apply those provisions.

16. In this matter, the Applicant’s Trade Marks were not accepted by the examiner under the provisions of s 44(4) or reg 4.15A(5).  Further, given my finding that the goods covered by the Applications are not similar to the Opponent’s Goods, it is not appropriate to apply the provisions of s 44(4).  Accordingly, this ground of opposition is not applicable.

17. The ground of opposition under s 58A of the Act has not been established in respect of either of the Applicant’s Marks.

    Section 60

18. Section 60 provides:

    60  Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia

    The registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services may be opposed on the ground that:

    (a)  another trade mark had, before the priority date for the registration of the first‑mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services, acquired a reputation in Australia; and

    (b)  because of the reputation of that other trade mark, the use of the first‑mentioned trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

    Note:          For priority date see section 12.

19. To establish this ground, the Opponent must demonstrate that, at the Relevant Date, there was another trade mark that had acquired a reputation in Australia and because of that reputation, use of the Applicant’s Marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

20. In McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick, Kenny J considered what is intended by the word ‘reputation’. Her Honour consulted the Macquarie Dictionary and on the basis of the definition provided decided that, in s 60, reputation is ‘the recognition of the [trade mark] by the public generally’.[11]  Reputation may be established in a variety of ways including volume of sales, advertising expenditure and evidence of promotions.[12]  In practice, it is commonplace to infer reputation from a high volume of sales, together with substantial advertising expenditures and other promotions, without any direct evidence of consumer appreciation of the mark, as opposed to the product.[13]  The reputation must be one of which a significant or substantial number of people would be aware.[14]  In Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee,the Court observed that what amounts to a significant or substantial amount of people will depend on the nature of the goods and services in question.[15]

    [11] [2000] FCA 1335, [81].

    [12] Ibid [86].

    [13] See Isuzu-General Motors Australia Ltd v Jackeroo World Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 198; Marks & Spencer plc v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (2000) AIPC 91-560; Photo Disc Inc v Gibson (1998) 42 IPR 473; and RS Components Ltd v Holophane Corp (1999) 46 IPR 451.

    [14] Renaud Cointreau v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2001] FCA 1170, [75] (Moore, Tamberlin and Goldberg JJ).

    [15] (2000) 50 IPR 1, 19-20 (Heerey J).

1. The Opponent relies on its continuous use of the Opponent’s Mark in Australia since October 2013.  The Opponent has not provided any revenue figures but the EIS annexes two invoices.  This first invoice dated 9 December 2013 is for the importation of a significant commercial value of products from a company named UBIO TEX ESPANA S.L. some of which appear to be UBIO branded goods and a second invoice dated 22 October 2015 which is in Spanish but appears to be a considerably smaller order.  The relationship between the Opponent and UBIO TEX ESPANA S.L. is not explained and whether the Opponent’s use of the mark UBIO inures to its own benefit or the Spanish company is not material to the outcome of these proceedings. 

2. The Opponent also claims that the volume of units sold is in the 7 figures.  It is not apparent whether these are annual sales or the total volume of goods sold since the Opponent’s Mark was first used.  Whilst examples of online advertising and pictures of packaging have been provided, there are no details about the Opponent’s promotional expenditure. The Opponent declares that it sent 2700 direct mail materials to nursing homes and 1600 such brochures to hospital/medical facilities on each of 10 marketing campaigns but there are no further details about when these campaigns took place.  The Opponent estimates that some 30,000 brochures or product information sheets featuring the Opponent’s Goods have been placed when ecommerce orders were shipped to customers over the last 8 years.  The Opponent’s Goods are also advertised online by retailers such as Harvey Norman, Kogan, Catch and OzSale but some of the other online advertising does not feature the Opponent’s Mark.

3. Whilst revenue and advertising figures are not always essential to a successful case under s 60, the information is objectively helpful in determining the nature and extent of any reputation claimed.  Based on the evidence, it is difficult to determine the extent of any reputation in the Opponent’s Mark.  I am not satisfied that at the Relevant Date, the Opponent’s Mark had acquired a reputation in Australia amongst a significant or substantial number of consumers.

4. Consequently, the s 60 ground of opposition has not been established in respect of either of the Applicant’s Marks.

   Decision

5. Section 55 relevantly provides:

   55  Decision

   (1)  Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:

   (a)  to refuse to register the trade mark; or

   (b)  to register the trade mark (with or without conditions or limitations) in respect of the goods and/or services then specified in the application;

   having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the application was opposed has been established.

   Note:          For limitations see section 6.

6. The Opponent has not established a ground of opposition.  Accordingly, trade mark application numbers 2068962 and 2104645 may proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision.

7. If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal before that time, I direct that registration shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued and the disposition of the applications should otherwise be in accordance with the Court’s order or direction.

8. The Applicant has requested an award of costs and hence I award costs in respect of trade mark number 2068962 against the Opponent under s 221 in the applicable amounts set out in Schedule 8 of the Regulations. In respect of trade mark number 2104645, I award reduced costs against the Opponent in the same manner as indicated in Hume Industries (Malaysia) Berhad v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd.[16]

   [16] [2001] ATMO 78.

   Tracey Berger
   Hearing Officer
   Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks
   8 June 2022

   ANNEXURE

   Trade Mark Number 2068962 UBIO

   Class 3:  cleansers for intimate hygiene purposes, non medicated; breath freshening sprays; breath freshening preparations for personal hygiene; alum stones (astringents); laundry detergent; essential oils; aromatics (essential oils); body moisturisers; herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes; body creams (cosmetics); non-medicated skin lotions; personal deodorants; deodorants for pets; vaginal washes for personal sanitary or deodorant purposes; anti-ageing creams, not medicated

   Class 5:  preparations for personal hygiene (medicated); vaginal washes for medical purposes; wipes for hygienic (medical) purposes; preparations for use in vaginal lubrication; preparations for use in vaginal moisturising; vaginal washes; detergents for medical purposes; disinfectants; nutritional supplements; personal sexual lubricants; sexual stimulant gels; enzyme preparations for veterinary purposes; microbial inoculants for medical use; microbiological growth inhibitors; absorbent nappies for pets; impregnated antiseptic wipes; aluminium acetate for pharmaceutical purposes; antiseptic cotton; antiseptic products

   Class 10:  dental instruments; medical devices for dental surgery; condoms; sex toys; contraceptives, non-chemical; vaginal syringes; feeding bottles; baby bottles; ultraviolet lamps for medical use; dental apparatus and instruments

   (‘Applicant’s UBIO Goods’)

   Trade Mark Number 2104645 

   Class 3:

   skin cleansers; skin care creams (cosmetic); skin care products (cosmetic); sun skin care products (cosmetics); cosmetic products for skin care; teeth whitening strips; toothpaste; gels for teeth cleaning; non-medicated mouth washes; non-medicated mouth rinses; mouth rinses, not for medical use; mouth (breath) fresheners, not for medical use; rinses (cleaning preparations); breath freshening sprays; mouth sprays, not for medical use; breath freshening strips; skincare cosmetics; cosmetics; cosmetic creams; cosmetic masks; cosmetic eye gels; skin cleaners (cosmetic); moisturisers (cosmetics); facial washes (cosmetic); cosmetic moisturisers; skin care preparations (cosmetic); eye masks (cosmetic); body creams (cosmetics); skin care oils (cosmetic); sunscreens; sunscreen preparations; sun lotions (cosmetics); moisturising skin lotions (cosmetic); moisturising lotions (cosmetic); sun protecting creams (cosmetics); hair shampoo; hair conditioner; hair gel; hair spray; hair products; baby oil; body oil; hair oil; essential oils; perfume oils; bath oils, not medicated; washing powder; rinses to prevent dental caries; laundry detergent; tooth powders; preparations for teeth cleaning; powders for teeth cleaning; cleaners (preparations) for cleaning dental instruments; tooth care preparations; cosmetic preparations for cleansing the teeth; lotion for the eyes (non-medicated); non-medicated eye wrinkle lotions; deodorants for the body; gels for use on the scalp; gels for use on the body; antiperspirant deodorants; personal deodorants; eye make-up; non-medicated creams for the eyes; eye moisturisers for cosmetic use

   Class 5:

   preparations for use in vaginal lubrication; preparations for use in vaginal moisturising; medical toothpastes; medicated toothpaste; medicated mouth washes; medicated mouth spray; mouth rinses for medical use; disinfectant washes; dental rinses, medicated; vaginal tampons; vaginal washes; vaginal washes for medical purposes; personal sexual lubricants; sexual stimulant gels; female hygiene articles; preparations for personal hygiene (medicated); sanitary preparations for personal hygiene, other than toiletries; mouthwash preparations (medical) for oral hygiene purposes; preparations for use in hygiene (disinfecting); detergents for medical purposes; detergents for cleaning use (medical); disinfectants; nutritional supplements; enzyme dietary supplements; enzymes for medical purposes; enzyme preparations for veterinary purposes; microbial inoculants for medical use; microbiological growth inhibitors; absorbent nappies for pets; impregnated antiseptic wipes; aluminium acetate for pharmaceutical purposes; antiseptics; antiseptic mouthwashes; antiseptic products; antiseptic cleansers; antibacterial handwashes; medical mouthwashes; deodorants for household use; eye-washes; eye ointment for medical use; eye lotions for medical use; medicated creams for the eyes

   Class 10:

   sex toys; condoms; teeth protectors for dental purposes; medical devices for dental surgery; vaginal syringes; contraceptives, non-chemical; feeding bottles; baby bottles; ultraviolet lamps for medical use; dental apparatus and instruments

   Class 21:

   dental flossing aids; apparatus for the care of natural teeth; apparatus for the care of artificial teeth; toothbrushes; electric toothbrushes; cleaning wipes; dental floss; utensils for cleaning teeth; water apparatus for cleaning teeth and gums; dental tape; toothbrushes, electric; heads for electric toothbrushes; refilling cartridges for toothbrushes; eye make-up applicators; applicators for applying eye make-up

   (‘Applicant’s UBIO Logo Goods’)