Hub Ventures Pty Ltd v Zig Zag Hub Pty Ltd

[2020] ATMO 140

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

Re:Opposition by Hub Ventures Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1779061 (classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 43) – Zig Zag Hub Coworking Spaces (figurative mark) - in the name of Zig Zag Hub Pty Ltd

Delegate:	Kate Doherty
Representation:	Opponent: Clearpoint Counsel Pty Ltd Applicant: Baxter IP
Decision:	2019 ATMO 140 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition pursuant to section 52 – Grounds of opposition pursued ss 44, 60 and 62A; none established; trade mark will proceed to registration.

Background

1.    This opposition is a proceeding on the written record decided as delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks in relation to the following trade mark pursuant to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘the Act’):

Trade Mark No:               1779061

Trade Mark:    (‘Trade Mark’)

Plain Words:  Zig Zag Hub Coworking Spaces

Filing date:   24 June 2016

Applicant:  Zig Zag Hub Pty Ltd

Specification of Goods: (at time of filing):  Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 43

Class 35

Career advisory services (other than education and training advice); Career information and advisory services (other than educational and training advice); Office functions; Transcription of communications (office functions); Office management services (for others); Office support staff recruitment services; Recruiting of office support staff; Management of business offices for others; Office administration services (for others); Registered office services; Association services being the provision of business support or advice

Class 36

Leasing of office space; Letting of office accommodation; Rental of office space; Rental of offices; Rental of offices (real estate); Rental of serviced offices (real estate); Real estate administration

Class 41

Adult training; Advisory services relating to training; Arranging and conducting of workshops (training); Arranging of exhibitions for training purposes; Association services being the provision of training and education to members of the association; Business training consultancy services; Business training services; Career advisory services (education or training advice); Career information and advisory services (educational and training advice); Coaching (training); Commercial training services; Conducting training seminars; Conducting workshops (training); Consultancy services relating to training; Employment training; Mentoring (education and training); Mentoring (training); Organisation of training courses; Organisation of youth training schemes; Practical training (demonstration); Providing courses of training; Provision of information relating to training; Provision of training; Provision of training courses; Provision of training facilities; Training; Training consultancy

Class 42

Design of layouts for offices; Design of office space

Class 43

Provision of temporary office accommodation

2. The Trade Mark was advertised accepted on 17 November 2016. A Notice of Intention to Oppose was filed on 17 January 2017 by Hub Ventures Pty Ltd (‘The Opponent’). The Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) was filed on 17 February 2017 completing the Notice of Opposition. On 18 January 2017, the Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend the Opposition. The SGP nominates grounds of opposition ss 44, 60 and 62A.

Evidence 

3.    Evidence in Support, Evidence in Answer, and Evidence in Reply were filed.

4.    At the expiration of the evidence timetable neither party requested a hearing, the parties were informed that the matter would be decided on the basis of the filed material.

5.    Written submissions were received from the Applicant, formal written submissions were not received from the Opponent but some written submissions are contained within its Declarations.

6.    The evidence received from the Parties.

Declarant	Party	Evidence Stage	Date	Annexures	Decision Reference
B Krauskopf	Opponent	EIS	5 June 2017	1 to 5	Krauskopf Declaration
C Rudd	Applicant	EIA	28 June 2017	1 to 4	Rudd Declaration
H Allard	Opponent	EIR	20 September 2017	1 only	Allard Declaration

The declarations annex evidence which includes copies of: sales invoices, operational documents, news articles, website screenshots, social media pages.

The Opponent’s Evidence 

7.    The Opponent states that they have operated co-working spaces and related services in Australia since 2010 in association with the following series of registered trade marks:

Words:                (‘Opponent’s Series Marks’)

Indexing Constituents:  HUB, WOLLONGONG, TOWNSVILLE, TOOWOOMBA, SYDNEY, SUNSHINE COAST, PARRAMATTA, NEWCASTLE, MELBOURNE, LAUNCESTON, HOBART, GOLD COAST, GEELONG, DARWIN, CANBERRA, CAIRS, BYRON BAY, BRISBANE, BENDIGO, BALLARAT, AUSTRALIA, ALICE SPRINGS, ALBURY, ADELAIDE

Indexing comment: Series of 24 Marks

Trade Mark No: 1630134

Filing date:        17 March 2008

Specification of Goods: (at time of filing):  Classes 35, 36, and 41

Class 35

Arranging exhibitions for advertising purposes; Arranging exhibitions for business purposes; Arranging exhibitions for commercial purposes; Arranging exhibitions for trade purposes; Conducting exhibitions for advertising purposes; Conducting exhibitions for business purposes; Conducting exhibitions for commercial purposes; Conducting exhibitions for trade purposes; Association services being the promotion of the interests of members of the association; Association services being the provision of business support or advice; Bartering services (facilitating the trade exchange of goods and services); Business promotion services; Business referrals services; Charitable services, namely organising and conducting volunteer programmes and community service projects; Charitable services, namely the recruitment, organisation and deployment of volunteers; Collecting business information; Collecting information for business; Compilation of information into computer databases; Conducting of business research; Conducting of internal business communication surveys; Conducting of market research; Conducting of marketing studies; Consultancy relating to personnel management; Consultancy relating to personnel recruitment; Job placement services; Electronic advertising services; Office administration services (for others); Office functions; Organisation and management of customer loyalty programmes; Organisation and management of discount card loyalty schemes; Organisation of fashion shows for promotional purposes; Placing advertisements (for others); Placing of advertisements; Providing business information via a web site; Providing information, including online, about advertising, business management and administration and office functions; Recruitment advertising; Recruitment of personnel; Registered office services; Registry services (administration services being recording and maintaining lists and information for others); Collection of commercial information; Personnel management; Selection of personnel; Consultancy relating to the establishment and running of businesses; Business management for freelance service providers; Business administration consultancy; Business consultancy; Business consultancy relating to the administration of information technology; Business consultancy services relating to management of fund raising campaigns; Business consultancy services relating to marketing; Business consultancy services relating to the marketing of fund raising campaigns; Business consultancy services relating to the promotion of fund raising campaigns; Business consultancy services relating to the supply of quality management systems; Business consultancy to individuals; Business management and organization consultancy; Business management consultancy; Business management organisation consultancy; Business organization consultancy; Business planning consultancy; Business recruitment consultancy; Commercial management consultancy; Consultancy relating to advertising; Consultancy relating to business document management; Consultancy relating to business efficiency; Consultancy relating to business management; Consultancy relating to business organisation; Consultancy relating to business planning; Consultancy relating to business promotion; Consultancy relating to marketing; Consultancy relating to sales promotions; Consultancy relating to the management of personnel; Consultancy relating to the preparation of business statistics; Consultancy relating to the selection of personnel; Corporate management consultancy

Class 36 

Leasing of buildings; Leasing of office space; Leasing of real estate; Property leasing (real estate property only); Property portfolio management; Rental of offices (real estate); Renting real estate; Letting of office accommodation; Letting of showrooms; Management of real estate; None of the aforementioned services being provided in conjunction with, or in relation to the operation of a shopping centre

Class 41

Business educational services; Business training consultancy services; Business training services; Personal development courses; Personal development training; Computer based training; Computer training; Computer training advisory services; Computerised training; Mentoring (training); Education information; Education services; Management of education services; Management of educational events; Charitable services, namely academic mentoring; Mentoring (education and training); Charitable services, namely education and training; Event management services (organisation of educational, entertainment, sporting or cultural events); Providing information, including online, about education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities; Providing online electronic publications (not downloadable); Providing online videos, not downloadable; Provision of education courses; Provision of education services via an online forum; Provision of educational courses; Provision of educational information; Provision of facilities for education; Provision of training courses; Provision of training facilities; Arranging of courses of instruction; Training; Vocational guidance (education or training advice); Vocational re-training; Arranging and conducting of colloquiums; Arranging and conducting of concerts; Arranging and conducting of conferences; Arranging of conventions; Conducting of conventions; Arranging of festivals; Organisation of festivals; Arranging of music performances; Arranging of music shows; Arranging of musical entertainment; Arranging and conducting of seminars; Arranging and conducting of symposiums; Arranging technical instruction courses; Arranging the provision of recreation facilities; Arranging and conducting of workshops (training); Association services being the provision of training and education to members of the association; Arranging and conducting of lectures; Arranging group recreational activities; Organisation of recreational activities; Commercial training services; Consultancy services relating to education; Consultancy services relating to training; Educational consultancy services; Lifestyle counselling and consultancy (training); Sports consultancy; Training consultancy

Endorsements

Provisions of subsection s 44(4) and/or Reg 4.15A(5) applied.

Provisions of paragraph s 44(3)(a) and/or Reg 4.15A(3)(a) applied.

The Applicant’s Evidence 

8.    The Applicant states that they operate a commercial business in Wollongong, NSW and that the business offers shared office spaces and the opportunity for users to collaborate with people from different industries.[1]

[1] Rudd Declaration, [2].

Onus and Standard of Proof

9.    The relevant standard of proof is the civil standard, or ‘on the balance of probabilities’.0F[2] 

[2] Pfizer Products Inc v Karam (2006) FCA 1663 per Gyles J at [6] to [26].

10.   The Opponent bears the onus of proof in an Opposition proceeding.1F[3] The application will succeed if one or more of the nominated grounds are established. The rights of the parties are to be determined as at the date of the application which is generally, but not always, the filing date. For the purposes of ss 44 and 60 which speak of the priority date, the relevant date is 24 June 2016, here this is the same as the filing date of the application. Section 62A does not reference a filing date or a priority date. In Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks His Honour, Yates J noted:[4]

[T]he Act does not in terms provide a mechanism for implementing a shifting date in s 41 or, indeed, in any other provision of the Act dealing with the registrability of a given mark. I can discern no basis for reading such a mechanism into the Act.

[3] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP (2010) FCAFC 58 [32].

[4] Apple Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (2014) FCA 1304 [45].

11.   For s 62A, I will proceed on the basis that the filing date of 24 August 2016 is the ‘Relevant date’ for assessment of the ground.

Grounds of Opposition

Section 60 – Trade mark is similar to a trade mark which has acquired a reputation in Australia

12. Section 60 of the Act provides:

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.

13. To establish a ground of opposition under s 60, the Opponent must demonstrate that at the priority date of 15 November 2016:

a)there was another trade mark;

b)which had acquired a reputation in Australia;

c)amongst a significant section of the public;

d)such that use of the opposed trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

14. Section 60 is discussed in McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick per Kenny J:3F2F[5]

[5] (2000) 51 IPR 102 [81].

Reputation is ‘the recognition of the [trade] marks by the public generally’.

However, for highly specialised products or products directed at specific markets the relevant assessment of reputation is made in relation to those markets and not the public generally.4F3F[6]  

The Opponent has claimed a broad selection of services in relation to its marks, the market does not appear to be highly specialised and includes members of the Australian business community.  The Opponent states that they operate co-working spaces in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.  The Krauskopf Declaration claims that the business membership includes:

·Flexible work offices and workspaces for a fee;

·Administrative and business support as part of membership; 

·Advisory and networking services; and

·Conducting and hosting workshops, training and events from the premises.

[6] Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Co v Hy-line Chicks Pty Ltd [1979] RPC 410 [436].

Reputation is often proven by a high volume of sales, as well as substantial advertising and promotional expenditures.  Direct evidence for consumer appreciation of a mark is often not required.5F4F[7]

[7] Ibid. [86].

15.   In ConAgra Inc v McCain Food (Aust) Pty Ltd it was stated that reputation cannot be assumed and must be established as a question of fact:6F5F[8]

It is one thing to sell goods, it is quite another to show that they have amassed a reputation which is sufficient to lead consumers into deception or confusion and to satisfy the requirements of s 60.7F6F[9]

[8] ConAgra Inc v McCain Food (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302.

[9] Sara Lee Corp v Bali Blue Pty Ltd (2003) 59 IPR 619 [25].

16.   The Opponent’s Series Marks appeared on the Trade Mark Register approximately eight years before the priority date.9F8F[10]  The evidence provided by the Opponent shows one the Opponent’s Series Marks, ‘HUB MELBOURNE’ (stylised), was used on two invoices, six years prior to the filing date, as well as social media at an unknown time.9F[11]  Another of the Opponent’s Series Mark’s, ‘HUB AUSTRALIA’ (stylised), is clearly visible on a version of the website which postdates the priority date.[12] 

[10] Above at [1] and [4].

[11] Krauskopf Declaration, Annexures One and Three.

[12] Ibid. Annexure Three.

17.   No evidence of paid advertising or promotional expenses are before me, but there are several newspaper articles.  A newspaper article from 2011 does not reference, show or link to any of the trade marks in the Opponent’s Series Marks and talks about a single business site in Melbourne.  Another article in 2013 also contains no reference to any trade mark, but contains a statement of plans to open a premises in Sydney.  A 2016 article states that the Opponent operates from flagship premises which are in central Melbourne which tends to imply physical proximity to many people each day.[13]  There is no evidence before me about whether people would see or remember the Opponent’s Series Marks in relation to the physical building.  No physical signage is shown in the evidence before me.[14] 

[13] Krauskopf Declaration, Annexure Three.

[14] Re Bali Brassiere Co Inc's Registered Trade Mark [1968] HCA 72.

18.   The degree of reputation necessary is dependent on the market in question.  In Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee12F17F[15] Heerey J observed:13F18F[16]

What is “significant” or “substantial” will depend on the nature of the goods or services in question. For highly specialised products, awareness among a few thousand persons, or even less might be sufficient … We are here concerned with foodstuffs sold in supermarkets, delicatessens, milk bars and other retail outlets. The relevant market is virtually the entire Australian population from early teenage years onwards.

[15] Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee (2000) 50 IPR 1; [2000] AIPC 91-661; [2000] FCA 1587; see also Spiral Foods Ltd v Valio Ltd (2000) 50 IPR 473.

[16] Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee (2000) 50 IPR 1; [2000] AIPC 91-661; [2000] FCA 1587 at 20, [91]; see also Aktion Zahnfreundlich v Suntory Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 593; [1998] ATMO 44.

19.   As indicated, the Opponent’s market is virtually the Australian business population who would seek to utilise any of the services listed in the Opponent’s Series Marks. No revenue or marketing figures have been provided.  Taking the Opponent’s evidence at its highest, it falls short of demonstrating the requisite reputation required pursuant to McCormick.[17]

[17] Ibid. [4].

20. I am satisfied the demonstrated use of the Opponent’s Series Marks prior to 15 November 2016 in the Opponent’s evidence is insufficient to establish the requisite reputation pursuant to s 60. I am therefore not required to consider whether use of the Trade Mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

21. I find the ground of opposition pursuant to s 60 is not established.

Section 44 – Identical etc. trade marks

22. Section 44 of the Act provides:

44 Identical etc. trade marks

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), an application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of services (applicant’s services) must be rejected if:

(a) it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:

(i) a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar services or closely related goods; or

(ii) a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar services or closely related goods is being sought by another person; and

(b) the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s services is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar services or closely related goods.

To successfully oppose the application pursuant to s 44 of the Act the Opponent must establish the requirements of s 44(2) which are that at least one of the trade marks upon which it relies:

1.Has a priority date which is earlier than that of the Trade Mark (‘the first requirement’), and;

2.Is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Trade Mark (‘the second requirement’), and;

3.Is in respect of similar services which are closely related to the Opponent’s services (‘the third requirement’)

23.   The first requirement is not in dispute, the priority dates of the Opponent’s Marks are substantiated by the Register and are approximately eight years earlier than the priority date for the Trade Mark.[18]

[18] Ibid. [1] and [7].

24.   In relation to the second requirement: the marks are not substantially identical.  The test for this is to compare the marks side by side.33F[19]  The marks share a word, but each contains a number of other different words.  The marks have square outlines but few other similarities.  Differences include the number of words, the Trade Mark is heavily stylised in a distinct font which bears no resemblance to any of the Opponent’s Marks.  The Trade Mark includes a distinctive lightning device within a circle shape.  Only the word ‘hub’ is shared, and I find it is a descriptive word and therefore not an essential feature or dominative cognitive clue in the Trade Mark.[20]

[19] Shell Co. (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd [1963] HCA 66, [12] (‘Shell’).

[20] The Macquarie Dictionary Online, Macmillan Publishers Australia 2020, defines ‘Hub’ as …6.  a centre within a region for a specified activity: a trading hub; a transport hub; Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83 [52] (‘Pham Global’).

25. Deceptively similar is an additional consideration pursuant to s 44, the Act states:

Section 10 – Definition of deceptively similar

For the purposes of this Act, a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trade mark if it so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. Resemblance pursuant to s 10 relates to the overall impression of the mark.  In this regard I refer to the accepted test for determining deceptive similarity . In Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd Windeyer J observed: ^[21]

   The marks are not now to be looked at side by side. The issue is not abstract similarity, but deceptive similarity. Therefore the comparison is the familiar one of trade mark law. It is between, on the one hand, the impression based on recollection of the plaintiff’s mark that persons of ordinary intelligence and memory would have; and, on the other hand, the impressions that such persons would get from the defendant’s [trade mark].

   [21] Shell (n 29) [29] (Windeyer J).

2. I must consider the impression that a person of ordinary intelligence and memory would have of the Trade Mark and of the Opponent’s Series Marks. I must consider the look, sound and idea of the trade marks, allowing for imperfect recollection, and I:

   must bear in mind the points of resemblance and the points of dissimilarity, attaching fair weight and importance of all, but remembering that the ultimate solution is to be arrived at, not by adding up and comparing the results of such matters, but by judging the general effect of the respective wholes.[22]

   [22] Clark v Sharp (1898) 15 RPC 141, 146.

   28.   A square shape is common to both marks.  The Trade Mark contains a fancy element of a stylised lightning bolt which I find highly distinct.  The word ‘hub’ is common to both marks but I find the word is descriptive and can be discounted somewhat in relation to the Trade Mark.  The Trade Mark contains many more words including another descriptive term synonymous with ‘hub’ which is ‘co-working’.  Though the colour of the Opponent’s Mark is blue on the register there is no formal endorsement for the colour and I am therefore not required to consider that difference.

   29.   The inherent capability of the Applicant’s mark to distinguish is reasonably high when the whole of the Trade Mark is considered. The font is distinct there is alliteration for the prominent words, there are descriptive terms, and a striking device. The services in the Application are for the types of services for which there is ordinarily a reasonable examination prior to purchase and repurchase, which would eliminate or reduce confusion. When allowing for the level of similarity between the marks, and the concept of imperfect recollection, when accessed by the same types of consumers I find they are unlikely to be confused. 

   30.   While some of the services may be the same the overall impression of the trade marks are significantly different.[23]  I do not find the marks are substantially identical or deceptively similar.  Therefore, I am not required to consider whether the Applicant’s services are similar or the same as those services covered by the Opponent’s Series Marks. 

   [23] Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Limited (1994) 120 ALR 495 at [62].

   31. I find the ground of opposition pursuant to s 44 is not established.

   Section 62A – Application made in bad faith

   32. Section 62A of the Act provides:

   62A Application made in bad faith

   The registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the application was made in bad faith.

   33.   The s 62A ground is nominated by parties in trade mark hearing disputes reasonably frequently but the ground is rarely successfully established.[24]  The reason for this is often that only bad faith in connection with the application process can be assessed.  Bad faith, fraud, misconduct or deception alleged to have occurred in relation to other business practices or agreements is not automatically relevant to an assessment of s 62A.   This ground is not a catch-all provision for any dispute which may have occurred between the parties.

   [24] Section 62A was introduced by the Trade Marks Amendment Act 2006, prior to this the Registrar was not empowered to refuse or remove marks on a ground of bad faith; see also: DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd[2013] FCA 478 at [62]. 

   34.   Section 62A is discussed in Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) per Kenny J:3F[25]

   By September 2004, Mr Fry, a director of Fry Consulting, was well aware of Sports Warehouse’s online retail store and the fact that Sports Warehouse sold goods to Australia through that website.  His visits to that online retail store led him to cause Fry Consulting, in September 2004, to register the business name “Tennis Warehouse”; to register the domain name and to set up an online tennis retail store at that domain name in competition with Sports Warehouse.  Mr Fry adopted the name knowing that it would cause confusion between Fry Consulting’s and Sports Warehouse’s online stores.  Indeed, the potential for such confusion was why he chose the name.  Furthermore, in developing the Fry Consulting website, Mr Fry took images from the Sports Warehouse website.

   [25] [2012] FCA 81 [62].

   35.   In the SGP the Opponent particularised the s 62A ground as follows:

   The Applicant would have, or ought to reasonably have known that the Opponent provided identical or substantially similar services under the “hub” mark. Such information would have been apparent via google® searches relating to co-working spaces and by searching ATMOSS. The Applicant ought to have known, as a reasonable person, that the inclusion of the word “hub” in the Applicant’s application would be likely to cause confusion among consumers, and as such the Applicant’s trade mark application was made in bad faith.

   36.   Any finding of similarity between the parties trade marks is not necessary pursuant to s 62A.  I find the parties marks simply coexist and are not related in anyway which would enliven consideration pursuant to s 62A.  The Opponent’s Series Mark’s appeared on the Register many years before the Trade Mark.[26] The only shared features of the marks are a square outline which is common and non-distinctive, as well as the word ‘Hub’ which is unlikely to be a memorable feature of the trade mark.  There is no evidence before me that the companies are related in any way or have had any prior dealings, no ownership issues have been alleged, and with the absence of any similarity between the marks this ground cannot be supported by any of the evidence before me.  The Opponent appears to have sought to infer a subjective mal-intent from the act of the Applicant adopting the term ‘hub’ and filing the Application.  This does not meet the threshold for the cogency of evidence required to support this ground.[27]

   [26] See [1] and [4] above.

   [27] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, pp 361.

   37.    I am satisfied that at the date of application for the Trade Mark, the Applicant’s conduct did not fall short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons.[28]  I find that the s 62A ground of opposition is not established.

   [28] DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478; 212 FCR 194 [77].

   Decision

   38.   The Opponent has not established a ground of opposition.  Pursuant to section 55(1), Trade Mark number 1779061 will proceed to registration for a period of ten years to date from the filing date of 24 June 2016.

   39. The parties may appeal this decision to the Federal Court in accordance with s 56 of the Act. If the Registrar has been served with notice of appeal, I direct that registration of the Trade Mark shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued.

   Costs

   40. Costs ordinarily follow the event for an Opposition Hearing. No reason has been advanced to displace this proposition, and therefore costs are awarded against the Opponent pursuant to s 221 of the Act in the relevant amounts prescribed by Schedule 8 of the Trade Mark Regulations 1995 (Cth).

   Kate Doherty
   Hearing Officer
   Oppositions and Hearings
   Trade Marks and Designs

   24 August 2020