Gopika Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meece Trust for an extension of time to file a bill of costs following opposition to registration of trade mark number 2157853 (class 35) –
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 56
•14 March 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gopika Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meece Trust for an extension of time to file a bill of costs following opposition to registration of trade mark number 2157853 (class 35) – [2025] ATMO 56
[2025] ATMO 56
14 March 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a request by Gopika Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meece Trust (the Opponent) for an extension of time to file a bill of costs following an opposition to the registration of trade mark number 2157853 in class 35. The hearing was conducted by a delegate of the Registrar on 16 January 2025, with the Opponent represented and filing written submissions and declarations, while the Applicant did not appear.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether to exercise the Registrar's discretion to grant the Opponent an extension of time to file its bill of costs. This required the delegate to consider the reasons provided for the delay in filing and the balance of convenience and public interest.
The delegate's reasoning focused on the declarations provided by the Opponent's representative, Mr Kortian. These declarations explained that the failure to file the bill of costs by the deadline was due to a technical error within the firm's practice management system, which failed to generate necessary reminders. While the exact cause of the system error was not definitively ascertained, the delegate found that the explanations provided sufficiently accounted for the omission, noting that such deadline errors are not uncommon even among experienced professionals. The delegate concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting the request.
The delegate ordered that the time for the Opponent to file its bill of costs be extended to 21 May 2024. The Opponent's request for an award of costs was declined, with the delegate determining that each party should bear their own costs in relation to the hearing for the extension of time.
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether to exercise the Registrar's discretion to grant the Opponent an extension of time to file its bill of costs. This required the delegate to consider the reasons provided for the delay in filing and the balance of convenience and public interest.
The delegate's reasoning focused on the declarations provided by the Opponent's representative, Mr Kortian. These declarations explained that the failure to file the bill of costs by the deadline was due to a technical error within the firm's practice management system, which failed to generate necessary reminders. While the exact cause of the system error was not definitively ascertained, the delegate found that the explanations provided sufficiently accounted for the omission, noting that such deadline errors are not uncommon even among experienced professionals. The delegate concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting the request.
The delegate ordered that the time for the Opponent to file its bill of costs be extended to 21 May 2024. The Opponent's request for an award of costs was declined, with the delegate determining that each party should bear their own costs in relation to the hearing for the extension of time.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Civil Procedure
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Gopika Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meece Trust v Cinnayum Pty Ltd
[2023] ATMO 163
Lyons v Registrar of Trade Marks
[1983] FCA 252
Kimberly-Clark Ltd v Commissioner of Patents
[1988] FCA 697