Mathew Wilson v Madrid Protocol by Lambda, Inc

This matter concerned an opposition by Mathew Wilson (the Opponent) against the extension of protection in Australia of an international registration by Lambda, Inc (the Holder) under the Madrid Protocol. The Opponent sought to oppose the registration on grounds including those under sections 43, 44, and 58A of the relevant legislation. The court was a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The legal issues before the delegate were whether the grounds of opposition, specifically those relating to deception or confusion under section 43, had been established by the Opponent. The delegate was required to determine whether the trade mark, if used in relation to the Holder's goods, would likely result in deception or confusion among consumers. The delegate also considered the evidence filed by both parties, including a declaration from the Holder's co-founder and CEO, and the Opponent's failure to file evidence in reply or written submissions.

The delegate adopted the approach of a previous decision in *Source Homeloans Pty Ltd v Coles Group Ltd*, holding that a claim of confidentiality over evidence must be specific. The delegate found that the Opponent had not established the grounds of opposition. Specifically, the delegate was not satisfied that the trade mark, when used in relation to the Holder's goods, would create a deceptive or confusing connotation. Consequently, the delegate decided to extend protection to the international registration.

Protection for the international registration was to proceed one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. The Opponent was ordered to pay the Holder's costs.