Majans Pty Ltd

[2016] ATMO 47

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

Re:Trade mark application number 1656288 (29, 30) – BHUJA - in the name of MAJANS PTY LTD.

Delegate:

Katrina Brown

Representation:

Applicant: Madhu Jogia of Jogias Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys

Decision:

2016 ATMO 47

Trade Marks Act 1995 - section 33 proceedings – s 41 – trade mark not capable of distinguishing – evidence not sufficient to overcome ground for rejection – trade mark application rejected.

Background

1. This matter is an ex parte proceeding pursuant to s 33 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘the Act’) involving an application for the registration of the following trade mark:

Trade Mark No: 1656288

Applicant:  Majans Pty Ltd (‘the Applicant’)

Filing Date:  4 November 2014

Trade Mark:                     BHUJA (‘the Claimed Mark’)

Goods:Various foodstuffs in class 29 and 30 (‘designated goods’). [1]

[1] Annexure 1 to this decision lists the designated goods in full.

1. The application was examined and grounds for rejection were raised under s 41(3) and s 41(4) of the Act. The first examination report stated:

   Your trade mark consists of the word BHUJA.

   This word is commonly used in relation to snack foods to refer to a type of snack food which consists of a variable mix of spicy, dried ingredients.

   Other traders also use the word BHUJA to indicate that their own products are, or are flavoured with similar spices to, the snack food commonly called BHUJA. It is therefore not capable of distinguishing your goods from the similar goods of other traders.

   Other traders should be able to use BHUJA in connection with goods or services similar to yours.

2. The Applicant was given the option of providing evidence of use, intended use or any other circumstances (where applicable) to overcome the grounds for rejection. The applicant was also given the option of amending the specification because the examiner was of the opinion that the Claimed Mark was inherently adapted to distinguish some of the designated goods.

3. The Applicant submitted the declaration of Rishil Raniga (Director of Majans Pty Ltd) made on 31 March 2015 with Appendices A to K, L1, L2 and M (‘Raniga 1’) to support the application.

4. The examiner was of the opinion that the evidence of use provided in Raniga 1 was not sufficient to overcome the grounds for rejection. The second examination report stated:

   The evidence provided indicates that although the applicant has been using BHUJA since 1984 it is not clear that it has been using it as a trade mark.

   …

   The evidence provided appears to indicate that the BHUJA has been used by the applicant almost exclusively alongside the applicant's MAJANS trade mark. Given that BHUJA is a descriptive word employed by many other traders to describe a type of snack the use of BHUJA alongside the MAJANS trade mark is likely to be seen by consumers as a description of the goods provided under the MAJANS brand rather than as a trade mark in its own right.

5. In the course of examination, the Applicant proposed the following amendment to the designated goods to overcome the grounds for rejection:

   Class 29: Prepared snacks made from fresh fruit; Prepared snacks made from fresh vegetables; Food made principally from milk; Food preparations having a base of milk; Food spreads consisting principally of dairy products; Food spreads consisting principally of edible fats; Food spreads consisting principally of edible oils; Foods made from milk products; Foods prepared from milk; Jellies for food; Prepared foods consisting principally of cheese; Soya based dairy substitutes; Soya milk (milk substitute); Chocolate nut butter; Drinks containing chocolate as flavouring for milk; Drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; Blanched nut kernels; Edible nuts; Mixtures of fruit and nuts; Nut oils; Nuts, prepared; Prepared cashew nuts; Roasted nuts; peas

   Class 30: Chocolate chips; Foodstuffs made of sugar for sweetening desserts; Confectionery chocolate products; Dairy confectionery; Flour confectionery; Ice confectionery; Lollipops (confectionery); Sugar confectionery; Biscuits; Chocolate biscuits; Chocolate coated biscuits; Malt biscuits; Oat biscuits; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Chocolate based products; Chocolate candy with fillings; Chocolate coated nuts; Bubble gum; Candy (not medicated); Candy coated confections; Candy mints; Sweetmeats (candy); Muesli; Muesli consisting predominantly of cereals; rice

6. The amendment was not made as the examiner considered that it did not overcome the grounds for rejection and that it would also extend the scope of the designated goods.  

7. After the fourth examination report the Applicant requested to be heard on the matter.

8. Doctor Madhu Jogia of Jogias Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys (‘the Applicant’s Representative’) made written submissions on behalf of the Applicant. A second declaration made by Rishil Raniga on 30 October 2015 (‘Raniga 2’) was also submitted. 

9. The matter has been allocated to me, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, to decide.

Section 41

1. As a preliminary matter I mention that the focus here is not to review the examiner’s decision and arguments, but rather to consider afresh the grounds for rejection that have been raised.

2. Section 41 of the Act relevantly provides:

   41     Trade mark not distinguishing applicant’s goods or services

   (1)    An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is sought to be registered (the designated goods or services) from the goods or services of other persons.

   …

   (2)    A trade mark is taken not to be capable of distinguishing the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons only if either subsection (3) or (4) applies to the trade mark.

   (3)    This subsection applies to a trade mark if:

   (a)   the trade mark is not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons; and

   (b)   the applicant has not used the trade mark before the filing date in respect of the application to such an extent that the trade mark does in fact distinguish the designated goods or services as being those of the applicant.

   (4)      This subsection applies to a trade mark if:

   (a)   the trade mark is, to some extent, but not sufficiently, inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons; and

   (b)   the trade mark does not and will not distinguish the designated goods or services as being those of the applicant having regard to the combined effect of the following:

   i.the extent to which the trade mark is inherently adapted to distinguish the goods or services from the goods or services of other persons;

   ii.the use, or intended use, of the trade mark by the applicant;

   iii.any other circumstances.

Note 1: Trade marks that are not inherently adapted to distinguish goods or services are mostly trade marks that consist wholly of a sign that is ordinarily used to indicate:

(a) the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or some other characteristic, of goods or services…

1. Pursuant to s 33 of the Act, the Registrar must accept an application for registration unless satisfied that there is a ground for rejecting it. As explained below, the Claimed Mark is not capable of distinguishing all of the designated goods. However, I am not entitled to reject the Claimed Mark unless I am satisfied that it is not capable of distinguishing the designated goods having regard to the combined effect of its inherent adaptation to distinguish, any evidence of use or intended use, or any other circumstances (where applicable).

Inherent adaptation to distinguish

1. The Applicant’s Representative submits that the Claimed Mark is inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods because “bhuja” has no meaning to the ordinary Australian consumer other than being the brand name marketed by the Applicant.

2. As outlined in the written submissions, the inherent adaptation of a trade mark is to be tested:

   [B]y reference to the likelihood that other persons, trading in goods of the relevant kind and being actuated only by proper motives – in the exercise, that is to say, of the common right of the public to make honest use of words forming part of the common heritage, for the sake of the signification which they ordinarily possess – will think of the word and want to use it in connexion with similar goods in any manner which would infringe a registered trade mark granted in respect of it.[2]

   [2] Clark Equipment Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511, 515.

3. The signification which the word ordinarily possesses (ordinary signification) is the ordinary meaning of the word to persons in Australia who purchase, consume and trade in the designated goods.[3]      

   [3] Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 48 [28] (‘Cantarella’).

4. In this matter, the Claimed Mark consists of the word “bhuja” in plain text. The Applicant’s Representative submits that “bhuja” is a foreign word and would have no meaning to customers whose first language is English. I do not agree with this characterisation of the ordinary signification of the word “bhuja”.

5. In my opinion, the word “bhuja” signifies a type of snack food consisting of spices and dried ingredients. It is a type of snack food in the same way that trail mix is a type of snack food. The Applicant’s own promotional material supports this conclusion. For example, the promotional material in Appendix D of Raniga 1 describes  “bhuja” as:

   [T]he first product that was launched in Australia and its origins date back to recorded history and beyond, when farmers used to roast their grains, cereals and pulses and blend them with a variety of spices to prevent them from deteriorating. As time went on and people took to travelling long distances, Bhuja was carried as a snack food of convenience as it had taste and was nutritious. Different families created their own mixes, which were passed down from generation to generation. The key factor being the mixture of spices. Majans Bhuja has evolved from this rich tradition.

6. As pointed out by the Applicant’s Representative, the fact that a word has a particular meaning in a foreign language is only part of the consideration. One must consider both the ordinary signification of the word in Australia and also the legitimate desire of other traders to use the word in relation to the same or similar goods.

7. This approach was endorsed by the High Court in Cantarella:

   Once the “ordinary signification” of a word, English or foreign, is established an inquiry can then be made into whether other traders might legitimately need to use the word in respect of their goods.[4]

   [4] [2014] HCA 48 [71].

8. The Applicant’s Representative states that the Google® searches provided by the examiner do not show use of “bhuja” as a trade mark by any trader other than the Applicant. For the purposes of s 41 the test is not whether other traders want to, or are in fact, using the word as a trade mark. Rather, the ‘other traders’ test refers to the common right of the public to make honest use of the words for the sake of the signification which they ordinarily possess.[5] In this matter, the enquiry looks to the likelihood of other traders desiring to use the word “bhuja” to indicate that their goods are dried ingredients flavoured with particular spices.

   [5] Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511, 514 (‘Clark’) and endorsed in Cantarella.

9. The likelihood of other traders desiring to use the Claimed Mark in relation to the designated goods may be tested by appropriate examples from the marketplace. On that point, I note the examples provided with the examiner’s third report including:

1. The examples attached to the examiner’s third report including those reproduced above, show other traders using the word “bhuja” not as a badge of origin, but as part of a descriptor for spicy snack foods, namely ‘Bhuja Mix’ or ‘Mixed Bhuja’.

2. The Applicant’s Representative notes that the examples provided by the examiner show traders using the word “bhuja” in combination with other words such as ‘mix’ or ‘mixed’.  It is well established that consideration is given not only to the likelihood of other traders desiring to use the same mark but also to the likelihood of other traders desiring to use some mark nearly resembling it, in connection with their own similar goods (emphasis added).[6]

   [6] W&G Du Cros Ltd’s Appn (1913) 30 RPC 660, 672, affirmed by Kitto J in Clark at 514.

3. The Applicant’s Representative also states that the examples provided by the examiner show traders using the word “bhuja” in relation to mixtures of goods and not in relation to individual items which the Applicant has claimed.  In my opinion, use of the word “bhuja” on individual items simply indicates the intended purpose of those items, namely that they are suitable to be used as ingredients for a bhuja mix.

4. In my opinion the Claimed Mark has no inherent adaptation to distinguish some of the designated goods, and varying degrees of non-distinctiveness (or misdescriptiveness on the face of it) in relation to other designated goods (discussed further in the section of this decision titled ‘Amendment to designated goods’). For now it is sufficient to note that having taken into account the presumption of registrability, I am nevertheless satisfied that the Claimed Mark is not inherently adapted to distinguish the entirety of the designated goods. Accordingly, I will now consider the Applicant’s evidence of use.

Evidence of use

Form of evidence

1. Raniga 1 and Raniga 2 are titled as statutory declarations and are referred to as such by the Applicant’s Representative. Pursuant to s 8(b) of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, a statutory declaration must be made before a prescribed person. In this instance neither of the Raniga declarations has been signed by an authorised witness.

2. The Act does not require evidence to be submitted in the form of a statutory declaration. Regulation 21.6 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 states that a declaration must be in an approved form. A notice (‘the notice’) setting out what is required for a declaration to be in an approved form was published in the Official Journal of Trade Marks on 28 June 2012. Pursuant to the notice, there is no requirement for a declaration to be witnessed.  The declarations that have been submitted in this matter are substantially compliant with the requirements set out in the notice and as such, I will proceed on the basis that the evidence has been submitted in an approved form, albeit not in statutory declarations.

3. I also note that Raniga 2 refers to appendices that were not submitted with that declaration. The statements in Raniga 2 which refer to appendices are identical statements to those made in Raniga 1. As such, I will infer that the references to appendices in Raniga 2 are references to the appendices of Raniga 1. When referring to appendices I am making reference to the appendices submitted with Raniga 1.

Discussion of evidence

1. Raniga 1 states that the Claimed Mark was first used in Australia in 1984 and has been used continuously since that date.  Marketing expenses have been provided for the years 2009 to 2014.[7] However, these figures are titled ‘Majans  Marketing Expenses’ and it is therefore unclear as to whether they specifically relate to expenses incurred from the promotion of products bearing the Claimed Mark, or other products which may be offered under the house brand MAJANS.

   [7] Raniga 1 Appendix A.

2. The declarant states that the Applicant’s sales records indicate that over 90% of the snack foods containing grains and nuts sold in major supermarket outlets (e.g. Coles and Woolworths) are purchased under the Claimed Mark.[8] I note that no documentation has been provided to support this statement.

   [8] Raniga 1.

3. Revenue figures for the sale of goods bearing the Claimed Mark in Australia have been provided for the years 2009 to 2014.[9] These figures are not insignificant considering the unit price of the goods.[10] However given that the examples of use submitted by the Applicant show the Claimed Mark always used in combination with MAJANS these revenue figures are not solely attributable to the Claimed Mark.

   [9] Ibid Appendix C.

   [10] Raniga 2.

4. The declarant also states that customers associate the word “bhuja” with the Applicant’s products. Firstly, I note that the Applicant has not provided any support for this assertion, such as a market survey or third party declarations attesting to the association. Furthermore, the fact that customers associate the Claimed Mark with the Applicant does not on its own demonstrate the capacity to distinguish one trader’s goods from those of another trader. It is necessary to establish that the association is because of the use of “bhuja” as a trade mark.[11]

   [11] Woolworths Limited v BP Plc (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 132 [117].

5. The following are indicative of the examples of use provided by the Applicant.[12]

[12] Raniga 1 Appendices  B and G.

1. It is clear from the examples provided that the Claimed Mark is used on the packaging of the Applicant’s products. However the Claimed Mark is invariably in the company of the MAJANS trade mark, not only on the packaging of the goods but also in the marketing and promotional materials supplied by the Applicant. For example in excerpts from press coverage including the Brisbane News, the Applicant’s product is referred to as ‘Majans Bhuja’.[13]

   [13] Ibid Appendix G. I note that not all of the examples provided are from Australian press.

2. The presence of multiple indicia is not fatal to an application. The question is ultimately whether the evidence before me demonstrates that the Claimed Mark is acting, in its own right, as a badge of origin notwithstanding the presence of other indicia. This requires consideration from an objective viewpoint of the purpose and nature (context) of the use[14] including:

   [C]onsideration of the totality of the packaging, including the way in which the words are displayed in relation to the goods and existence of a label of a clear and dominant brand.[15]

   [14] Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd (1961) 109 CLR 407, 425.

   [15] Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestlé Australia [2010] FCAFC 117 [19].

3. The Claimed Mark is displayed prominently on the packaging of the goods. The letters of the word “bhuja” are all in upper case and are the largest or equally largest in terms of font size. However, the prominence of a word is not in itself indicative that it will be perceived as a badge of origin.

4. The relative distinctiveness of the words is also relevant to determining how a consumer is likely to perceive a product label or promotional material. The Applicant’s Representative asserts that “bhuja” is the only significant and distinctive word used in relation to the Applicant’s goods. I cannot agree with this statement. As demonstrated in the examples of packaging reproduced at paragraph 34 of this decision, the Applicant uses the word MAJANS on its goods. MAJANS is on the face of it distinctive in relation to the designated goods and in this respect I note that the Applicant’s Registration 1568878 for the plain word MAJANS did not have a s 41 ground for rejection raised. Comparably, the Claimed Mark describes the goods to which it is applied and its strength as a brand is therefore diminished.

5. Taking into account all of the above, I am not convinced that upon seeing the packaging and promotional materials the word “bhuja” would necessarily be perceived by the purchasing public as a trade mark. In my opinion there is a strong possibility that the word “bhuja” would be viewed as a descriptive adjunct to the MAJANS trade mark or as part of a composite trade mark consisting of the words “Majans”, “Bhuja” and a flame like device.

1. When I weigh the evidence before me together with the very low inherent capacity of the Claimed Mark to distinguish many of the designated goods, I find that the combined effect is not enough to support a finding that it is adapted to distinguish the designated goods from the similar goods of other traders.

Amendment to designated goods

1. During the course of examination the Applicant proposed the following amendment to the designated goods:

   Class 29: Prepared snacks made from fresh fruit; Prepared snacks made from fresh vegetables; Food made principally from milk; Food preparations having a base of milk; Food spreads consisting principally of dairy products; Food spreads consisting principally of edible fats; Food spreads consisting principally of edible oils; Foods made from milk products; Foods prepared from milk; Jellies for food; Prepared foods consisting principally of cheese; Soya based dairy substitutes; Soya milk (milk substitute); Chocolate nut butter; Drinks containing chocolate as flavouring for milk; Drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; Blanched nut kernels; Edible nuts; Mixtures of fruit and nuts; Nut oils; Nuts, prepared; Prepared cashew nuts; Roasted nuts; peas

   Class 30: Chocolate chips; Foodstuffs made of sugar for sweetening desserts; Confectionery chocolate products; Dairy confectionery; Flour confectionery; Ice confectionery; Lollipops (confectionery); Sugar confectionery; Biscuits; Chocolate biscuits; Chocolate coated biscuits; Malt biscuits; Oat biscuits; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Chocolate based products; Chocolate candy with fillings; Chocolate coated nuts; Bubble gum; Candy (not medicated); Candy coated confections; Candy mints; Sweetmeats (candy); Muesli; Muesli consisting predominantly of cereals; rice

2. As mentioned, the amendment was not made as the examiner considered that it did not overcome the grounds for rejection and that it also extended the scope of the designated goods.

3. In his written submissions, the Applicant’s Representative has requested that I consider this proposed amendment.

4. In my opinion, the proposed amendment contains goods that the Claimed Mark is not to any extent capable of distinguishing, namely: blanched nut kernels; edible nuts; mixtures of fruit and nuts; nuts, prepared; prepared cashew nuts; roasted nuts in class 29. Nor does the evidence of use provided by the Applicant show that the Claimed Mark does distinguish these goods.

5. I am also of the opinion that the proposed amendment extends the scope of the goods claimed in the trade mark application and is therefore in contravention of s 65(7) of the Act. For example, the proposed amendment contains a claim for peas in class 29. The original specification does not contain a claim for peas nor does it contain a broad claim for vegetables which would include peas. A claim for peas is not allowable as it would have the effect of extending the rights that the Applicant would have if the registration were granted.

6. The proposed amendment is also problematic because the goods are food products for which the Claimed Mark is likely to impart meaning, even if it does not directly describe them. For example, use of the word “bhuja” on various food stuffs is likely to indicate that those food stuffs may be used as ingredients for bhuja, or in the preparation of bhuja, or that they are flavoured as bhuja or contain bhuja as a textural or flavour component (unlike, for example, BHUJA upon motor vehicles or shoes which is unlikely to impart any meaning). As such, if the word “bhuja” is placed on packaged food products this may be construed as misdescriptive if the packages do not in fact contain bhuja. This may give rise to grounds for rejection under s 43 of the Act.

Decision

1. Section 33 of the Act provides:

Application accepted or rejected

(1)The Registrar must, after the examination, accept the application unless he or she is satisfied that:

(a)    the application has not been made in accordance with this Act; or

(b)    there are grounds under this Act for rejecting it.

Note:         For this Act see section 6.

(2)The Registrar may accept the application subject to conditions or limitations.

Note:         For limitations see section 6.

(3)If the Registrar is satisfied that:

(a)   the application has not been made in accordance with this Act; or

(b)  there are grounds under this Act for rejecting it;

the Registrar must reject the application.

Note:         For this Act see section 6.

(4)The Registrar may not reject an application without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

Note:         For applicant see section 6.

1. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is a ground for rejecting the Claimed Mark under s 41 of the Act.

2. In accordance with s 33(3) of the Act, I reject trade mark application number 1656288.

3. However, if the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal within one month from the date of this decision, I direct that the disposition of the application be in accordance with the Court’s direction or order.

Katrina Brown

Hearings Officer

Trade Mark Hearings

11 July 2016

Annexure 1

Class 29: Banana based snack food products; Fruit based snack food; Fruit-based snack foods; Potato based snack food products; Potato snack foods; Prepared snacks made from cooked fruit; Prepared snacks made from cooked vegetables; Prepared snacks made from dried fruit; Prepared snacks made from dried vegetables; Prepared snacks made from fresh fruit; Prepared snacks made from fresh vegetables; Prepared snacks made from nuts; Snack food products made wholly or principally of potatoes; Snack foods made from dehydrated vegetables; Snack foods made from dried vegetables; Snack foods made from eggs; Snack foods made from potatoes and wheat (potatoes predominating); Snack foods made from pre-cooked vegetables; nut-based snack bars; seed-based snack bars; Fruit chips; Low-fat potato chips; Potato chips; Dates; Sultanas; Processed raisins; Raisins; Edible oils for use in cooking foodstuffs; Food made principally from milk; Food preparations having a base of milk; Food preparations having a base of vegetables; Food preparations with a vegetable base; Food preparations with added minerals for use by athletes; Food preparations with added proteins for use by athletes; Food preparations with added vitamins for use by athletes; Food preserves; Food products made from cooked fruits; Food products made from cooked nuts; Food products made from cooked vegetables; Food products made from dried fruits; Food products made from dried nuts; Food products made from dried vegetables; Food products made from eggs; Food products made from nuts; Food products made from preserved fruits; Food products made from preserved nuts; Food products made from preserved vegetables; Food spreads consisting principally of dairy products; Food spreads consisting principally of edible fats; Food spreads consisting principally of edible oils; Foods made from milk products; Foods prepared from milk; Jellies for food; Nut products for food; Prepared foods consisting principally of cheese; Pulses (for food); Soya beans, preserved, for food; Sunflower oil for food; Vegetable food products; Soya based dairy substitutes; Soya based edible oils; Soya milk (milk substitute); Chocolate nut butter; Drinks containing chocolate as flavouring for milk; Drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; Blanched nut kernels; Edible nuts; Mixtures of fruit and nuts; Nut oils; Nuts, prepared; Prepared cashew nuts; Roasted nuts; Apple flakes; Coconut flakes; Potato flakes

Class 30: Cereal based snack food; Cereal snack foods flavoured with cheese; Crisp snack food products; Flavourings for snack foods (other than essential oils); Flour based savoury snacks; Maize based snack products; Potato flour based snack food products; Rice based snack foods; Sesame snacks; Snack bars consisting of chocolate; Snack bars containing dried fruits (confectionery); Snack bars containing grains (confectionery); Snack food products consisting of cereal products; Snack food products made from cereal flour; Snack food products made from cereals; Snack food products made from maize flour; Snack food products made from potato flour; Snack food products made from rice; Snack food products made from rice flour; Snack food products made from soya flour; Snack foods consisting principally of confectionery; Snack foods consisting principally of grain; Snack foods consisting principally of pasta; Snack foods made from cereals; Snack foods made from corn; Snack foods made of wheat; Snack foods prepared from grains; Snack foods prepared from maize; Snack foods prepared from potato flour; Snack products made of cereals; Snacks manufactured from cereals; Snacks manufactured from muesli; Chips (cereal products); Chocolate chips; Corn chips; Rice chips; Aromatic preparations for food; Cereal based food bars; Food products consisting of cereals; Food products containing cereals; Food products containing flour; Food products made from potato flour; Foods produced from puffed cereals; Foods with a chocolate base; Foodstuffs made from cereals; Foodstuffs made from corn; Foodstuffs made from maize; Foodstuffs made from oats; Foodstuffs made of rice; Foodstuffs made of sugar for sweetening desserts; Foodstuffs made with cereals; Foodstuffs made with flour; Oat-based food; Potato flour for food; Processed grains for use in food; Tapioca flour for food; Turmeric for food; Rice tapioca; Tapioca; Soya flour; Instant cooking noodles; Instant noodles; Meals made predominantly from rice, pasta or noodles; Noodles; Savoury preparations made from cereals; Chocolate confectionery; Confectionery; Confectionery chocolate products; Dairy confectionery; Flour confectionery; Ice confectionery; Lollipops (confectionery); Sugar confectionery; Biscuits; Chocolate biscuits; Chocolate coated biscuits; Malt biscuits; Oat biscuits; Rice biscuits; Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Chocolate based products; Chocolate candy with fillings; Chocolate coated nuts; Nut confectionery; Barley flakes; Corn flakes; Maize flakes; Natural rice flakes; Oat flakes; Bubble gum; Candy (not medicated); Candy coated confections; Candy mints; Sweetmeats (candy); Muesli; Muesli bars; Muesli consisting predominantly of cereals; Flavoured popcorn; Popcorn