Molicopi S. L. v Aleksandra Miletic

Molicopi S. L. opposed the registration of two trade mark applications, numbers 2199092 and 2199094, filed by Aleksandra Miletic. Both applications sought registration for goods and services in classes 25 and 35, with the proposed trade marks being "PICCOLINI" and "PICCOLINI SHOES" respectively. The opposition was heard by Debrett Lyons, a Hearing Officer.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether Molicopi S. L. had successfully established a ground of opposition under section 44 of the relevant Act. This section pertains to the registration of trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks. The Hearing Officer was required to determine if the grounds of opposition raised by Molicopi S. L. were established to the extent that registration should be refused.

The Hearing Officer found that section 44 of the Act was satisfied, leading to the conclusion that the ground of opposition was successful in both applications. Consequently, it was not necessary to consider any other grounds of opposition. Pursuant to section 55 of the Act, the Hearing Officer decided to refuse the registration of both trade mark applications. Molicopi S. L. was awarded costs against the Applicant, Aleksandra Miletic, in accordance with section 221 of the Act and the relevant regulations. Costs for the second opposition were to be calculated in accordance with a previous decision in *James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Hume Industries (Malaysia) Berhad* (2001) 53 IPR 591, given the identical nature of the evidence in both oppositions.