Intact Projects Pty Ltd v Intact Consulting Pty Ltd

This decision concerns an opposition proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the Trade Marks Office. The applicant, Intact Projects Pty Ltd, sought to register a trade mark, while the opponent, Intact Consulting Pty Ltd, opposed this registration. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had established sufficient use of its trade mark and whether its use was honest and concurrent with the opponent's existing trade mark.

The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether the opposition ground based on section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) was established. This involved assessing whether the applicant had made out a case for honest concurrent use of the trade mark, considering the evidence of use presented and any potential confusion with the opponent's mark.

The Hearing Officer found that there was little to no evidence of the applicant's use of the trade mark. Furthermore, evidence indicated significant and repeated confusion between the opponent and another entity, Intact Construction Services Pty Ltd t/a Intact Group, some of which may have been attributable to the similarity between the trade mark in question and the opponent's trade mark. In the absence of satisfactory evidence of use by the applicant, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that any particular inconvenience would befall the applicant if registration were refused. Consequently, the opposition ground under section 44 was established.

The Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark and awarded costs against the applicant in favour of the opponent, applying the general rule that costs follow the event.