Multi Access Limited v Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co Ltd

In the matter of *Multi Access Limited v Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co Ltd*, the applicant, Multi Access Limited, sought to register trade marks. The opponent, Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co Ltd, opposed these applications. The dispute concerned the registrability of Multi Access Limited's trade marks, which featured Chinese characters that could be transliterated as "WANG LAO JI" and translated as "LUCKY OLD KING". The opponent's trade mark was cited during the examination of the applicant's earlier registrations, leading to amendments to the specifications of goods. Following acceptance of the current applications, the opponent lodged an opposition.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's trade marks should be registered, considering grounds of opposition under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to assess the potential for confusion or deception arising from the similarity of the marks and the goods or services for which they were sought to be registered, in light of the opponent's existing rights. The court also had to consider the onus of proof, which rests on the opponent in trade mark oppositions, and apply the ordinary civil standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities. The relevant date for determining the rights of the parties was established as 30 May 2017, which was also the priority date for the grounds of opposition under sections 44 and 60.

The court acknowledged a general presumption of registrability in favour of the applicant. The opponent's grounds of opposition under section 42(b) related to the potential for the applicant's mark to deceive or cause confusion. The grounds under section 44 concerned the similarity of the marks and the goods or services, and the potential for confusion with the opponent's earlier trade mark. The grounds under section 60 related to the use of the mark by the opponent prior to the filing date. The court's reasoning would have involved a detailed comparison of the marks, the specifications of goods, and evidence of use, if any, to determine whether the opponent had discharged its onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.