Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd and Registrar of Trade Marks

In *Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd and Registrar of Trade Marks*, Senior Member A Poljak of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The applicant, Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd, contended that an email from the Registrar dated 16 November 2016 constituted a reviewable decision, specifically a refusal to grant a hearing regarding the refusal of an extension of time to file a statement of grounds and particulars in a trade mark opposition.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review the Registrar's email. This involved determining whether the email constituted a "decision" that was reviewable under the relevant provisions of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) and the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The applicant also argued that the email amounted to a dismissal of the opposition, which they contended was reviewable under section 99A of the *Trade Marks Act*.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction. Senior Member Poljak reasoned that the email of 16 November 2016 was not a formal application to be heard on the extension of time, but rather a hypothetical query from the applicant. The Registrar's response foreshadowed potential difficulties and clarified the situation, noting that the extension of time had already been determined and the opposition had concluded. Crucially, the Tribunal held that there is no statutory provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review a decision refusing to grant a hearing on an extension of time application. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the email did not constitute a dismissal of the opposition, but merely a restatement of the opposition's concluded status. Section 99A of the Act was also found to be inapplicable as it pertains to the removal of trade marks for non-use, not the opposition process itself.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Registrar's email dated 16 November 2016. The application was therefore dismissed.