Insfin Insurance + Finance Group Pty Ltd

This matter came before Jock McDonagh, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, concerning an application for the removal of a trade mark. The opponent, Insfin Insurance + Finance Group Pty Ltd, sought an extension of time to oppose the removal application, having failed to receive the initial notification. The removal applicant argued against granting the extension, citing the opponent's failure to demonstrate due diligence in inquiring about the non-receipt of correspondence and the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether to exercise discretion to grant an extension of time for the opponent to file its notice of opposition to the removal of its trade mark. This involved considering the opponent's explanation for not receiving the removal application and related correspondence, and balancing this against the removal applicant's submissions regarding procedural regularity and the potential for undue prejudice. The delegate also had to determine the appropriate directions for the subsequent filing of evidence and the allocation of costs.

The delegate was satisfied that the opponent had not received the original removal application or subsequent official correspondence until advised of the trade mark's removal. While acknowledging the opponent's failure to inform the Registrar of a change in postal address, the delegate found the explanation for non-receipt plausible. Applying the principles of procedural fairness and exercising discretion under sub-section 224(3) of the Act, the delegate granted the extension of time for Insfin Insurance + Finance Group Pty Ltd to file its notice of opposition. The delegate also issued directions regarding the filing of evidence and ordered that each party bear their own costs.