Geoffrey Inc v MHS Engineering Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application by Geoffrey Inc. to register a trade mark, opposed by MHS Engineering Pty Ltd. The decision was made by Terry Williams, a Hearing Officer in the Trade Marks Hearings.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the grounds of opposition raised by MHS Engineering Pty Ltd were established. This involved considering the evidentiary weight to be given to the absence of a witness for the applicant, Geoffrey Inc., in relation to the evidence presented by the opponent.

In reaching his decision, the Hearing Officer applied the principles articulated by Kitto J in *Jones v Dunkel*. Specifically, the Hearing Officer noted that while the absence of a witness cannot fill a deficiency in evidence, evidence that could have been contradicted by the absent party may be accepted more readily. Furthermore, where an inference is open from proven facts, the fact that the party disputing the inference could have provided contrary evidence is a circumstance favouring the drawing of that inference. In the absence of any response or evidence from the applicant, the Hearing Officer found the grounds of opposition to be established.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark and ordered that the applicant, Geoffrey Inc., pay the costs of MHS Engineering Pty Ltd.