eBay Inc v Mediabay Marketplace Pte Ltd

[2019] ATMO 50

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

ReOpposition by eBay Inc to extension of protection of International Registration 1347325 (35, 42) (Australian trade mark application 1848577) – MEDIA BAY logo – held by Mediabay Marketplace Pte Ltd

Delegate:                 Robert Wilson

Decision on the Written Record

Representation:       Opponent: King & Wood Mallesons

Holder: Colin W Love & Company Lawyers

Decision:                   2019 ATMO 50

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth): Regulation 17A.33 opposition: s 60 considered – opponent’s trade marks have significant reputation – use of holder’s trade mark likely to deceive or cause confusion – extension of protection to Australia refused

Background

1. Trade mark number 1848577 is the Australian designation of a request made under the Madrid Protocol by Mediabay Marketplace Pte Ltd (‘the Holder’) to extend protection of the trade mark subject of International Registration 1347325 to Australia. The request is known as an International Registration Designating Australia (‘IRDA’). This is an opposition to the extension of protection brought by eBay Inc (‘the Opponent’) pursuant to reg 17A.33 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’). Details of the IRDA are as follows:

IRDA:

1848577

International Registration:

1347325

Filing Date:

27 June 2017

Convention Priority Date:[1]

8 February 2017

Services:

2.   Class 35: Provision of an on-line marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods and services relating to sports; business management of sports people; sponsorship search for sports people; advertising, including promotion of products and services of third parties relating to international sports' events; referral marketing; providing consulting services in the field of facilitating the planning, buying, and selling of media; advertisement and promotion of sports brands

3.       Class 42: Platform as a service (PaaS) featuring computer software platforms for buyers and sellers of goods and services relating to sports

 (‘the Holder’s Services’)

Trade Mark:

(‘the Holder’s Trade Mark’)

[1] Trade Marks Regulations 1995 regs 17A.2 to 17A.4.

1. Following the advertisement  in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks of the IRDA’s acceptance for possible registration on 6 July 2017 the Opponent filed a Notice of Opposition (‘the Notice’) consisting of a Notice of Intention to Oppose on 4 September 2017 and a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘the SGP’) on 26 September 2017. The Holder filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 20 November 2017. The SGP raised grounds of opposition pursuant to ss 42(b), 43, 44, 59, and 60. On 20 October 2017 IP Australia sent a Notification Of Provisional Refusal Based On An Opposition to the World Intellectual Property Organisation which advised of the receipt of the Notice.

2. On 22 February 2018, the Opponent filed Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) of its opposition. This evidence consists of:

   ·Declaration made on 20 February 2018 by Amber Leavitt, the Senior Director of Global Intellectual Property for the Opponent (‘the Leavitt declaration’). The Leavitt declaration includes a single exhibit being Exhibit VT-1 which is divided into ten tabs. In this decision, references to Tabs, eg Tab 1, Tab 5, are references the tabs of Exhibit VT-1.

3. The Holder did not file any Evidence in Answer (‘EIA’) by the due date. An application for an extension of time to file EIA was refused by a delegate of the Registrar.

4. Once the time allowed for filing evidence had ended the parties were given an opportunity to request a hearing or to file written submissions. Both parties chose to rely on written submissions only. The Opponent’s submissions were prepared by its lawyers King & Wood Mallesons. The Holder’s submissions were prepared by Christian Bova of Counsel, who was instructed by Colin W Love & Company Lawyers.

5. The matter was allocated to me as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. I am to decide the opposition as required by reg 17A.34N of the Regulations which relevantly provides that, unless the proceedings are discontinued or dismissed, the Registrar must decide:

   (a)to refuse protection in respect of all the goods or services listed in the IRDA; or

   (b)To extend protection in respect of some or all of the goods or services listed in the IRDA (with or without conditions or limitations);

   having regard to the extent (if any) to which the grounds on which the IRDA was opposed have been established. In deciding this matter I have considered the material discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

   The Opponent

6. According to the Leavitt declaration:

   [The Opponent] was formed as a sole proprietorship in September 1995 and was incorporated in California in May 1996. In April 1998, it reincorporated in Delaware and in September 1998 completed the initial public offering of its stock.

   [The Opponent] is the world’s leading on-line marketplace, which, via its websites at < and < allows for the sale of goods and services by a diverse community of individuals and businesses at a local, national and international level. [The Opponent’s] mission is to provide a global trading platform where practically anyone can sell anything. [The Opponent] is a leading e-commerce destination for consumers shopping on the Internet.

7. The Opponent is the owner of the registered trade marks detailed below (‘the EBAY Trade Marks’). Details of the specifications of the goods and/or services of each of the EBAY Trade Marks appear in the annexure to this decision.

Trade Mark No.	Trade Mark	Class(es)	Priority Date
781907	EBAY	35	12/11/1998
822958	EBAY	35, 42	9/2/2000
1526475	9, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45	12/9/2012
1541791	35	12/20/2013

1. I note that trade mark number 1541791, above, has the following endorsement:

   The trade mark registration is limited to the colours RED, BLUE, YELLOW, GREEN and GREY as shown in the representation of the trade mark attached to the application form.

   Trade mark number 1526457, above, has no endorsement regarding colour.

   The Holder

2. There is nothing before me from which I might provide a background of the Holder, other than it has an address in Singapore and may be registered there.

   Grounds of Opposition, Onus and Standard of Proof

3. As indicated above, in the SGP the Opponent nominated grounds of opposition pursuant to ss 42(b), 43, 44, 59, and 60. In its submissions the Opponent pressed only the grounds pursuant to ss 42(b), 44 and 60. It is necessary that the Opponent establish only one ground of opposition to successfully oppose the IRDA. As will become apparent it is necessary only that I consider the ground pursuant to s 60 in this decision. However, should this decision be appealed, it would remain open to the Opponent to plead any ground available to it under the Act in proceedings before the appellate Court.

4. The onus of proof in an opposition rests upon the Opponent.[2] The relevant standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard based on the balance of probabilities.[3] The date at which the rights of the parties are to be determined is generally the filing date of the application except in respect of those grounds which speak of a priority date. The Holder has claimed a Convention Priority Date pursuant to the Madrid Protocol being 8 February 2017 this is the priority date for the s 60 ground of opposition (‘the Relevant Date’).

   Discussion

   [2] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32].

   [3] Following Gyles J in Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663, [6]-[26].

   Grounds for rejecting and opposing IRDA

5. Regulation 17A.28 of the Regulations states:

   (1)The grounds for rejecting an IRDA are the grounds set out in sections 39 to 44 of the Act, as affected by subregulation (2).

   (2)Sections 39 to 44 apply in relation to an IRDA as if: 

   (a)a reference in those sections: 

   (i)to an application for the registration of a trade mark were a reference to the IRDA; and

   (ii)to an applicant were a reference to the holder of the IRDA; and

   (b)the reference in paragraph 41(3)(b) to the filing date in respect of an application were a reference to the date of international registration or the date of recording, as applicable, in respect of the IRDA; and

   (c)each reference in subparagraphs 44 (1) (a) (i) and (2) (a) (i) to a trade mark registered by another person included a protected international trade mark held by another person; and

   (d)each reference in subparagraphs 44 (1) (a) (ii) and (2) (a) (ii) to a trade mark whose registration is being sought by another person included a trade mark in respect of which the extension of protection to Australia is being sought by another person.

   (3)The ground set out in section 177 of the Act is a ground for rejecting an IRDA that is for a certification trade mark.

6. Regulation 17A.34 of the Regulations states:

   (1)The extension of protection may be opposed on any of the grounds on which an IRDA may be rejected under Subdivision 2, except the ground that the trade mark cannot be represented graphically.

   (2)The extension of protection may also be opposed on any of the grounds set out in sections 58 to 61 and 62A of the Act, as affected by subregulation (3).

   (3)sections 58 to 61 and 62A of the Act apply in relation to an IRDA as if: 

   (a)a reference in those sections: 

   (i)to an application for the registration of a trade mark were a reference to the IRDA; and

   (ii)to an applicant were a reference to the holder of the IRDA; and

   (iii)to the registration of a trade mark were a reference to the extension of protection in Australia to the trade mark that is the subject of the IRDA; and

   (b)the reference in paragraph 60(a) of the Act to the priority date for the registration of the trade mark were a reference to the priority date for the trade mark that is the subject of the IRDA.

   (4)The extension of protection may also be opposed on the grounds that: 

   (a)a document filed in support of the IRDA was amended contrary to the Act; or

   (b)the Registrar accepted the IRDA on the basis of evidence provided, or a representation made, by the holder that was false in a material particular.

   Note:  section 66 of the Act provides for the amendment of documents filed with the Registrar.

   Section 60

7. The Opponent referred to the EBAY Trade Marks, detailed above, then particularised the 60 ground of opposition in the SGP as follows:

   The Opponent's EBAY Trade Marks have acquired a substantial reputation in Australia by reason of the Opponent's extensive use of those trade marks in Australia since at least 1999 in relation to the provision of online marketplaces and related marketing and advertising services, and software platforms that allow the buying, selling and exchange of goods and services online.

   Because of the reputation of the EBAY Trade Marks, the use and registration of the Opposed Trade Mark, which is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the EBAY Trade Marks, in relation to the services claimed by Application No. 1848577, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

8. Section 60 of the Act is reproduced below:

   Section 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.

9. To establish a ground of opposition under s 60 an opponent must demonstrate that at the relevant date there was another trade mark which had acquired a reputation in Australia amongst a significant number of persons in the relevant market such that use of the Holder’s Trade Mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

10. In McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick, Kenny J considered what is intended by the word ‘reputation’. Her Honour had 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’.[4] Her Honour quoted with approval the following words of Lockhart J from Re ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd:

    [R]eputation within the jurisdiction may be proved by a variety of means including advertisements on television or radio, or in magazines and newspapers within the forum. It may be established by showing constant travel of people between other countries and the forum and that people within the forum, (whether residents there or persons simply visiting there from other countries) are exposed to the goods of the overseas owner …[5]

    [4] [2000] FCA 1335, [81].

    [5] [1992] FCA 159, [118].

11. The Holder concedes that of the EBAY Trade Marks, trade marks numbers 781907, 822958 and 1526475 have acquired substantial reputations in Australia. For the purposes of this ground of opposition it is necessary that I consider only those three trade marks because if the ground were not successful in respect of those trade marks neither would it succeed in respect of trade mark number 1541791. For the sake of simplicity, for the remainder of this decision a reference to the EBAY Trade Marks will be a reference to those three trade marks only.

12. A s 60 ground of opposition has been considered in a number of earlier oppositions brought by the Opponent. In one of those decisions Hearing Officer Thompson found in respect of trade mark 1526475:

    [T]he Opponent’s Trade Mark has a reputation which approaches notoriety. Most, if not practically all, Australians must be aware of the Opponent’s Trade Mark and the evidence shows that … over 10 million Australians, well over a third of the population, had purchased through a website bearing the Opponent’s Trade Mark.[6]

    In another decision Hearing Officer Spence found that:

    [T]he Opponent has a substantial, established and indeed overwhelming reputation in Australia in respect of its EBAY trade marks.[7]

    Those decisions were made some three and four years, respectively, before the Relevant Date. The evidence in this matter confirms the extent of the reputation acquired by the EBAY Trade Marks. I proceed on the basis that the EBAY Trade Marks acquired a significant reputation by the Relevant Date.

    [6] eBay Inc v Dean William Hawkins [2014] ATMO 54, [23].

    [7] eBay Inc v Tradiebay Pty Ltd [2013] ATMO 58, [22].

13. It is not sufficient that the Opponent merely establishes that its trade mark has a significant reputation. There must also be sufficient similarity between the Opponent’s trade mark and the trade mark applied for that the use of the Holder’s Trade Mark trade mark would be likely to deceive or confuse. Whilst section 60 does not require that the trade mark applied for be deceptively similar to that identified by the Opponent, discussions and decisions on deceptive similarity are legion and a good number provide relevant comments in relation to a consideration of deception or confusion. In Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F S Walton and Company Limited, Dixon and McTiernan JJ said the following:

    An attempt should be made to estimate the effect or impression produced on the mind of potential customers by the mark or device for which the protection of an injunction is sought.  The impression or recollection which is carried away and retained is necessarily the basis of any mistaken belief that the challenged mark or device is the same.  The effect of spoken description must be considered.  If a mark is in fact or from its nature likely to be the source of some name or verbal description by which buyers will express their desire to have the goods, then similarities both of sound and of meaning may play an important part.  The usual manner in which ordinary people behave must be the test of what confusion or deception may be expected.  Potential buyers of goods are not to be credited with any high perception or habitual caution.  On the other hand, exceptional carelessness or stupidity may be disregarded.  The course of business and the way in which the particular class of goods are sold gives, it may be said, the setting, and the habits and observations of men considered in the mass affords the standard.[8]

    [8] (1937) 58 CLR 641, 658 (emphasis added).

14. The concepts of ‘deceive’ and ‘confuse’ were explained in the New Zealand case of Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Co v Hyline Chicks Pty Ltd, where Richardson J said:

    ‘Deceived’ implies 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. Where the deception or confusion alleged is as to the source of the goods, deceived is equivalent to being misled into thinking that the goods bearing the applicant's mark come from some other source and confused to being caused to wonder whether that might not be the case. ^[9]

    [9] [1979] RPC 410, 423 (citations omitted).

15. In Registrar of Trade Marks vWoolworths Ltd French J highlighted the following further matters concerning confusion:

    A trade mark is likely to cause confusion if the result of its use will be that a number of persons are caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products or closely related products and services come from the same source. It is enough if the ordinary person entertains a reasonable doubt. It may be interpolated that this is another way of expressing the proposition that the trade mark is likely to cause confusion if there is a real likelihood that some people will wonder or be left in doubt about whether the two sets of products or the products and services in question come from the same source.

    In considering whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion all surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration. These include the circumstances in which the marks will be used, the circumstances in which the goods or services will be bought and sold and the character of the probable acquirers of the goods and services.[10]

    [10] (1999) 45 IPR 411, 428. These considerations by French J are based on principles set out by Kitto J in Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592, 594-5.

16. The Opponent’s submissions in respect of the similarities between the Holder’s Trade Mark and the EBAY Trade Marks contained the following:

    Both the Mediabay Mark and the EBAY Marks contain the same last syllable, –BAY, which is a fanciful and arbitrary word with no natural meaning in relation to the operation of online marketplaces, promotion and advertising of third party products and services, and the provision of software allowing users to conduct commercial transactions on online marketplaces.

    That suffix has, only through the Opponent’s widespread use of the EBAY Marks, become highly distinctive and has developed a strong association as the online marketplace operated by the Opponent that exists for parties to trade in goods and services online. …

    Importantly, the ‘-BAY’ suffix serves as the most memorable and essential feature of the EBAY Marks due to its absence of associations with the trading services for which the EBAY Marks are registered.

    In the Mediabay Mark, –BAY is juxtaposed with the prefix Media–, that is descriptive of various means of mass communication (including the Internet). Particular prominence is given to the -BAY suffix in the Mediabay Mark by the use of a shaded box circumscribing the –BAY element and the use of inverse lettering. In other words, the distinguishing and memorable element of the Mediabay Mark is the suffix –BAY.

    By adopting the same construction as the Opponent’s EBAY Marks, but merely replacing the prefix E- with the descriptive term MEDIA-, the Mediabay Mark creates a similar aural and visual impression to that conveyed by the EBAY Marks.

    The Opponent notes that while the emphasis in the English language is often placed on the first syllable of a word, this is not always the case. For example, in Smith Hayden & Co Ltd’s Application, Re (1946) 63 RPC 97, the trade marks ‘Hovis’ and ‘Ovax’ were found to be deceptively similar. Further, in Kaydale Apparel Ltd v Manufacture de Bonneterie C Mawet (1985) APIC 90-201 (Reg), the trade marks ‘Izona’ and ‘Ozona’ were found to be deceptively similar.

    As noted above, the emphasis placed on this common element, the -BAY suffix, is further drawn out by the use of a different coloured font and the presence of a shaded box behind that element …

1. In its submissions in respect of the s 44 ground of opposition the Holder submitted that trade marks numbers 781907 and 822958, which it defined collectively as the ‘the EBAY Word Mark’:

   is the high-point of the Opponent’s case. If the Mediabay Mark is not deceptively similar to the EBAY Word Mark, then it is inconceivable that it could be deceptively similar to either [of the other trade marks upon which the Opponent relies].

   Nevertheless, there are many differences between the Mediabay Mark and the EBAY Word Mark which lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Mediabay Mark is not deceptively similar to the EBAY Word Mark. Those differences include the following:

   (a)    First, ‘mediabay’ is a much longer word than ‘ebay’. The Mediabay Mark contains the letters ‘m’, ‘d’ and ‘i’ which do not appear in the EBAY Word Mark. The Mediabay Mark also includes an extra ‘a’, and the letter ‘e’ is not proximate to ‘bay’, as it is in the EBAY Word Mark. These differences give each mark a very different visual appearance.

   (b)    Secondly, ‘mediabay’ is very different aurally from ‘ebay’. The former comprises four syllables, while the latter comprises only two. Only one of those syllables is common between the two marks. ‘Mediabay’ and ‘ebay’ sound completely different. This means that the Mediabay Mark could never reasonably be mispronounced or misheard as the EBAY Word Mark.

   (c)    Thirdly, the Mediabay Mark includes the word ‘media’ which is entirely absent [from] the EBAY Word Mark. The word ‘media’ brings associations to the Mediabay Mark which are absent from the EBAY Word Mark.

   (d)    Fourthly, the Mediabay Mark is stylised, whereas the EBAY Word Mark is a plain word mark. …

   The only similarity between the Mediabay Mark and the EBAY Word Mark is that they end in the syllable ‘-bay’. That is all the Opponent has to rely upon. It is far from sufficient to make the Mediabay Mark deceptively similar to the EBAY Word Mark.

2. In respect of s 60 the Holder submitted:

   [I]n the circumstances of this opposition it is difficult to see how section 60 could advance the Opponent’s position beyond where it finds itself under section 44.

   The principles for determining whether consumers are likely to be deceived or confused for the purposes of section 60 are the same for determining whether a trade mark is deceptively similar to another trade mark under section 10 (ie ‘… that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion) for the purposes of s 44.[11] As such, it would be a very rare case indeed where a section 44 ground of opposition would fail because the marks are not deceptively similar, but a section 60 ground of opposition based upon the same marks would still succeed. The present is not such a case.

   [11] Qantas Airways Ltd v Edwards (2016) 119 IPR 271, [145].

3. I disagree with the Holder’s assessment, contained in the previous paragraph, of the law and its application. It is, in my view, based on an incorrect reading of the cited case. It is far from uncommon that a s 44 ground would have failed where a s 60 ground has succeeded. This is not necessarily apparent from reading a large number of decisions where s 60 has been successfully established by an opponent. This is because it is necessary that an opponent establish only one ground of opposition. Once a successful ground of opposition has been established it is unnecessary that the decision maker discuss any other grounds, including any grounds which would have been unsuccessful. Normally the unsuccessful grounds would not be discussed. Further, in making an assessment of the likelihood of deception under s 44 ‘all of the surrounding circumstances have to be taken into account’.[12] However, those circumstances do not include any reputation which an earlier trade mark may have acquired through use. ‘[T]he test for deceptive similarity is not a test to be complicated by considerations of reputation in trade marks’.[13] I note that I make no finding in regard to deceptive similarity for the purposes of s 44 in this matter.

   [12] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592, 595.

   [13] Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411, 435 [82].

4. On occasion an unsuccessful ground might be discussed in a decision even where another ground has been successfully established. In their submissions, the parties referred me to three decisions which concerned earlier oppositions by the Opponent. In separate decisions Hearing Officers Irgang and Spence found that use of the signs ‘earthbay’[14] and ‘TRADIEBAY’,[15] respectively, would give rise to deception or confusion under s 60 notwithstanding that they also found the signs were not deceptively similar under s 44. The third case concerned a stylised sign which consisted of the word ‘uBAY’, shown below (‘the uBay decision’). In that case Hearing Officer McDonagh found neither s 60 nor s 44 established.

[14] Trade Mark Application No 1183434 in the name of Benham and Opposition by eBay Inc (unreported) 7 January 2009.

[15] eBay Inc v Tradiebay Pty Ltd (2013) 102 IPR 318.

1. A more recent decision, which was also an opposition by the Opponent, concerned the sign shown below.[16]

   In that decision, Hearing Officer Thompson found that because of the reputation acquired by the EBAY Trade Marks, use of the sign would give rise to deception or confusion under s 60. Mr Thompson did not specifically consider deceptively similarity under s 44 however it was noted that the respective signs ‘share a number of strong similarities’, both end in the distinctive suffix ‘bay’ and ‘the word “bay” has no signification in relation to the Opponent’s services apart from being the distinctive part of its very well-known trade mark’.[17]

   [16] eBay Inc v Dean William Hawkins [2014] ATMO 54.

   [17] Ibid [31].

2. While earlier cases may provide some guidance in deciding a matter in hand, that guidance should not be taken too far: each opposition should be decided on its own merits. The earlier cases discussed here concern oppositions brought by the Opponent and the same trade marks relied upon in the earlier decisions are submitted to be a barrier to the registration of the Holder’s Trade Mark in the present matter. In this situation, the earlier cases may provide a level of guidance which they otherwise might not. That said, there does, on the face of it, appear to be some inconsistency in the earlier decisions, with the uBay decision seeming to stand alone.

3. In the present matter, I am satisfied that at the Relevant Date the eBay Trade Marks had acquired a significant in Australia. Furthermore, I am persuaded by the Opponent’s submissions, and for the reasons submitted by the Opponent I am satisfied that because of that reputation the use of the Holder’s Trade Mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. It is likely that many people would at least be caused to wonder on seeing the Holder’s Trade Mark used in relation to the Holder’s Services, whether those services were connected in some way with the Opponent and/or its eBay Trade Marks. The Opponent has, therefore, established this ground of opposition. It is unnecessary that I consider any of the other grounds nominated in the SGP.

   Decision

4. I have found that the Opponent has established the ground of opposition it raised pursuant to s 60 of the Act. As the Delegate of the Registrar I accordingly refuse to extend protection of the Holder’s Trade Mark to Australia.

5. In accordance with reg 17A.34N(2) the International Bureau will be notified of the Registrar’s decision.

   Costs

6. The Opponent has sought an award of costs in its favour. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. As the Opponent has established a ground of opposition, I award costs against the Holder as per Schedule 8 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995.

   Robert Wilson
   Hearing Officer
   Trade Mark and Designs Hearings
   5 April 2019

   Annexure

   Specifications of goods and/or services of the EBAY Trade Marks.

   781907
   Class 35: On-line trading services being the facilitation of the exchange of consumer goods from person to person

   822958
   Class 35: Providing an online, interactive bulletin board for the posting, promotion, sale and resale of items via a global computer network; and for the collection and dissemination of statistical, quantitative and qualitative information regarding the sale and resale of items via a global computer network; providing analyses and online distribution of statistical, quantitative and qualitative information regarding the sale and resale of items via a global computer network

   Class 42: Computer programming; maintenance services for computer software; provision of access to computer databases; provision of access to global information networks and other network systems

   1526475
   Class 9: Mouse pads; computer e-commerce software to allow users to conduct electronic business transactions in online marketplaces via a global computer network; computer database software featuring information in the field of hobbies, collectibles and a wide variety of products; computer software and software development tools for use in developing further software and software applications in the field of e-commerce

   Class 14: Clocks; watches; jewellery

   Class 16: Publications, namely, a series of nonfiction books, concerning hobbies, collectibles, auctions, and a wide variety of products relating to antiques, art, literature, culture, technology, travel, sports, entertainment, home furnishings, garden items, musical instruments, motor vehicles, toys and games, fashion, jewellery, electronics, photography, holiday related items, film and video; paper and stationery items, namely, greeting cards, memorandum boards, memo pads, paper postcards, stationery, pens and pencils; bumper stickers, calendars, decorative stickers and decals; playing cards

   Class 25: Clothing, namely, T-shirts, sweatshirts; caps; jackets; and visors

   Class 28: Christmas tree ornaments; soft sculpture toys; plush toys; toy miniature cars; bean bag toys

   Class 35: Online trading services, namely, operating online marketplaces for sellers and buyers of goods and services; online trading services in which sellers post products or services to be offered for sale and purchasing or bidding is done via the Internet in order to facilitate the sale of goods and services by others via a computer network; providing evaluative feedback and ratings of sellers' goods and services, the value and prices of sellers' goods and services, buyers' and sellers' performance, delivery, and overall trading experience in connection therewith; providing a searchable online advertising guide featuring the goods and services of online vendors; providing a searchable online evaluation database for buyers and sellers; advertising and advertisement services; business services, namely, providing users the ability to create customized web pages featuring user-defined information in the field of intellectual property rights and intellectual property enforcement policies, in order to assist program participants with inquiries and requests regarding use of intellectual property by others in an online marketplace via a website

   Class 36: Real estate listing services; classified real estate listings of apartment rentals, housing rentals and vacation rentals; providing purchase protection services in the field of online trading of goods and services by others via a global computer network; charitable fundraising services

   Class 38: Telecommunications services, namely, the electronic transmission of data and information; electronic messaging; providing an online, interactive bulletin board for the transmission of messages among computer users concerning hobbies, collectibles, trading, and the sale of goods and services via a global computer network

   Class 41: Providing sweepstakes, games of chance and contests via the Internet; entertainment services, namely providing a radio program in the fields of hobbies, collectibles, trading, buying, selling, and online auctions and marketplaces; educational services, namely, conducting classes in the field of information security and providing corporate education courses in the field of information security; educational services, namely, providing courses, classes and seminars in the fields of buying and selling via online marketplaces, as well as establishing and operating online marketplace businesses

   Class 42: Design and development of computer software, software applications, and application programming interfaces; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable computer software and software development tools for use in developing further software and software applications in the field of e-commerce; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable e-commerce software to allow users to conduct electronic business transactions in online marketplaces via a global computer network; maintenance and updating of computer software for others

   Class 45: Online social networking services; processing and administration of intellectual property legal claims; providing information regarding intellectual property owners and their enforcement policies, all in order to assist program participants with inquiries and requests regarding use of intellectual property by others in an online marketplace; identification verification services, namely, confirming authenticity of environmentally friendly products, producers and sellers

   1541791
   Class 35: On-line advertising on computer communication networks; classified advertising services; conducting shareholder and investor relations, namely, providing shareholder record keeping, business reports, and business information and analyses; business management and consultation; information services relating to business matters; providing an on-line searchable database featuring information related to shareholder and investor relations, and information related to employment hiring, recruiting, placement, staffing and career networking services; employment services, namely, employment hiring, recruiting, placement, staffing and career networking services