Honest Reveira v Registrar of Trade Marks

The case of Honest Reveira v Registrar of Trade Marks involves a challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to grant an extension of time to Honest the Snack Shack Pty Ltd (Honest the Snack Shack) to file a notice of intention to oppose an application for removal of two trade marks. The applicants, The Honest Reveira and The Honest Hospitality Group, LLC, seek a declaration and an order that the Decision be set aside. The applicants argue that the Decision was not authorised by the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) and/or involved an error of law, and that the delegate did not have jurisdiction to make the Decision.

The key legal issues in this case are whether the Decision was authorised by the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) or involved an error of law, and whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to make the Decision. The applicants argue that the Decision was not authorised by the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) and/or involved an error of law, and that the delegate did not have jurisdiction to make the Decision. The applicants contend that the extension of time should only be granted if the applicant can demonstrate that they were prevented from filing their notice of opposition due to the operation of some "irresistible force" that could not have been foreseen or avoided and that was effective to deprive both the applicant and its employees or agents of any ability to take the requisite step within the relevant period.

The court found that the applicants' arguments were not well-founded. The court noted that the applicants had not provided any evidence to support their claims that the extension of time was not authorised by the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) or involved an error of law. The court also found that the delegate had jurisdiction to make the Decision, as the provisions for the grant of an extension of time are well-established in trade marks legislation and intellectual property legislation more generally. The court concluded that the Decision was authorised by the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) and did not involve an error of law.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The parties have liberty to apply within seven days to seek a variation of the costs order.