Luckymaze Pty Ltd v Ametalin IP Pte Ltd

In a trade mark opposition proceeding before Blake Knowles, Hearing Officer, the applicant, Ametalin IP Pte Ltd, sought to register the trade mark "CeaseFire" for goods in Class 9. The opponent, Luckymaze Pty Ltd, opposed this registration on several grounds, including that the use of the trade mark would be contrary to law (s 42(b)), that the applicant was not the owner of the trade mark (s 58), and that the trade mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods (s 60).

The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether Luckymaze Pty Ltd had discharged its onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that any of the grounds of opposition were established. The assessment of the parties' rights was to be made as at the relevant date, which was the filing date of the applicant's trade mark application, 7 August 2020. Luckymaze Pty Ltd presented evidence of its extensive reputation and use of the "CeaseFire" mark in relation to fire and safety equipment and maintenance since 2004, including invoices, website extracts, and contractual agreements.

The Hearing Officer found that Luckymaze Pty Ltd had not established that the use of the trade mark would be contrary to law under s 42(b). Furthermore, the evidence presented did not support the grounds of opposition under s 58 or s 60. Consequently, none of the nominated grounds of opposition were established.

The Hearing Officer ordered that the trade mark may proceed to registration, subject to a stay of one month from the date of the decision, or until any appeal is withdrawn or discontinued. Costs were awarded against the opponent, Luckymaze Pty Ltd, in accordance with the relevant regulations.