Next Retail Limited & Next Group Plc v Cubic Transportation Systems Limited

[2015] ATMO 43

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

Re:Opposition by Next Retail Limited to extension of protection to international registrations designating Australia no. 1426878- NEXTACCOUNT- held by Cubic Transportation Systems Limited

and

Opposition by Next Group Plc to extension of protection to international registration designating Australia no.  1444389 – NEXTACCOUNT with logo – held by Cubic Transportation Systems Limited

Delegate:	Bianca Irgang
Representation:	Opponents: Not present at hearing. Holder: Mr Ed Heerey of Counsel instructed by Madderns
Decision:	2015 ATMO 43 r.17A.34 opposition to extension of protection: sections 44 and 60 pressed – neither ground established.

Background

1. Cubic Transportation Systems Limited (‘the holder’), applied for extension of protection of International Registrations Designating Australia (‘IRDAs’) nos. 1426878 and 1444389 on 31 March 2011 and 21 June 2011 respectively for goods in class 9 of the International Classification of Goods and Services. Relevant details of the IRDAs are set out below.

Trade Mark:  NEXTACCOUNT

IRDA:  1426878

International Registration No:       1075723

Priority Date:  31 March 2011

Specification:  Class 9: Computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for integrating fare collection and payment system transactions; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for fare collection and payment; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for data and transaction management and analyses; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for financial settlement and clearing; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for consumer behavior tracking; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for tracking people's use of transportation and mass transit; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for customer relationship management; serialized media for fare collection and payment systems; smart cards; smart card readers; magnetic encoded cards; magnetic encoded card readers; near field communication (NFC) technology-enabled readers

Trade Mark:  

IRDA:  1444389

International Registration No:       1086520

Priority Date:  21 June 2011

Specification:  Class 9: Computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for integrating fare collection and payment system transactions; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for fare collection and payment; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for data and transaction management and analyses; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for financial settlement and clearing; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for consumer behavior tracking; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for tracking people's use of transportation and mass transit; computer hardware, computer software, operating systems and peripherals therefor for customer relationship management; serialized media for fare collection and payment systems; smart cards; smart card readers; magnetic encoded cards; magnetic encoded card readers; near field communication (NFC) technology-enabled readers

Endorsements:  Colour Claimed: BLACK, BLUE and GRAY.; Parts Colour Claimed: The wording NEXT in BLACK, the wording ACCOUNT in BLUE, a triangle in BLUE, a triangle in GRAY.; Mark Description: The mark consists of the wording NEXT in BLACK followed by the wording ACCOUNT in BLUE followed by a triangle in BLUE pointing right and above a triangle in GRAY pointing left

1. The IRDAs were advertised as accepted for possible protection in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks on 4 August 2011 and 12 January 2012 respectively. Next Retail Limited and Next Group Plc filed Notices of Opposition (‘the Notices’) to protection on 6 February 2012 and 12 July 2012 respectively. Thereafter the opponents and holder filed evidence as provided by the Trade Mark Regulations 1995 (‘the Regulations’).

2. I heard the matters in Canberra on 11 March 2015 as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Mr Ed Heerey appeared for the holder. The opponents were not present at the hearing but did provide written submissions for consideration.

Grounds of Opposition

1. The Notices nominated most grounds of opposition under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘the Act’) but only those grounds under sections 44 and 60 were pursued by the opponents in their submissions. The onus is upon the opponents to establish their grounds of opposition. However, should the opponents establish one ground of opposition in relation to all of the goods listed in the IRDA, there is no requirement for me to consider the other ground pressed. Gyles J has referred to the standard of proof required in these matters in terms of a ‘balance of probabilities’.[1] His findings upon that issue, arrived at after a consideration of the relevant authorities, have been discussed with approval by Sundberg J in Chocolaterie Guylian NV v Registrar of Trade Marks[2].

   [1] Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663; (2006) 70 IPR 599

   [2] [2009] FCA 891, para 22-27 (2009) 82 IPR 13. See also Sports Warehouse Inc v Fry Consulting [2010] FCA 664; (2010) 87 IPR 300 at [36] to [39]; NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v British American Tobacco Services Limited [2011] FCA 1051 (9 September 2011) at [16] to [32])

Evidence

1. The evidence for both matters consists of a total of the five declarations listed below:

Declarant	Position	Date Made	Exhibits
Evidence in Support
Sarah Louise Waterland[3]	Company Solicitor of Next Retail Limited	7.10.12	SLW-1 to SLW-9
Sally Ann Shrimpton	Trade Mark Attorney of Griffith Hack	10.12.12	SAS1
Sarah Louise Waterland[4]	Company Solicitor of Next Retail Limited	7.01.14	SLW-1 to SLW-12
Evidence in Answer
Matthew James Cole[5]	Executive Vice President, Deputy for Strategy, Business Development & Diversification of Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc	17.12.12	MC1 to MC5
Matthew James Cole[6]	Executive Vice President, Deputy for Strategy, Business Development & Diversification of Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc	8.04.14	MC1 to MC5

[3] For ease of reference this declaration will be referred to as ‘Waterland 1’

[4] This declaration will be referred to as ‘Waterland 2’

[5] This declaration will be referred to as ‘Cole 1’

[6] This declaration will be referred to as ‘Cole 2’

The opponents’ evidence

1. Waterland 1 states that Next Retail Limited and Next Group Plc first used the NEXT trade mark in 1982 in the United Kingdom in relation to clothing products that were sold through the NEXT retail outlets owned or controlled by Next Group Plc. Next Retail Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Next Group plc. Next Group Plc allows Next Retail Limited to use the NEXT trade marks in Australia under licence. Where necessary, I will refer to the two entities separately or as the opponents for the purpose of this decision.

2. From 1982 Next Group Plc has continually operated a chain of High Street stores in the UK. According to Waterland 1 Next Group Plc first adopted and used the trade marks NEXT and NEXT HOME for homewares and home furnishings and the retailing of these goods in 1985, and has continued to use the trade marks in respect of those goods and services to date (exhibit SLW-1 accompanying Waterland 1).

3. In 1998 Next Group Plc launched a mail order catalogue service and in 1999 an online shopping website at In 2000 the mail order catalogue gained its millionth active customer and Next Group Plc now has in excess of 2 million active customers ordering online or through the mail order business. In the UK the Next Group plc operates 560 NEXT stores with a store in almost every town and city.

4. The opponents sell NEXT branded goods through NEXT branded stores in Denmark, Iceland, Bahrain, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Malta, UAE, Omar, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jersey, Guernsey, Indonesia, India, Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Pakistan, Armenia and Japan. The opponents also sell NEXT goods to other countries through the UK website. However, I note that neither of the opponents have opened any stores within Australia. The opponents’ sales of NEXT branded goods to Australian consumers have occurred outside of Australia or via the UK website.

5. Paragraph 8 of Waterland 1 outlines the confidential international annual turnover and advertising figures for the sale of the opponents’ NEXT branded goods for the financial years starting in 1999 until 2011. The figures are in pounds sterling and are very considerable. The opponents also hold a number of trade mark registrations in many countries throughout the world (exhibit SLW-8 accompanying Waterland 1).

The holder’s evidence

1. The holder is the leading integrator of payment and information solutions and related services for intelligent travel applications. The applicant specializes in the design, development, manufacture, supply, installation, integration, and related services and information for integrated systems for transportation and traffic management. The services that the holder provides include on-site management, central systems, operations support, patron support and business support and field services. Put much more simply, the holder provides fare payment systems for transportation agencies which manage large-scale public transit such as public buses or trains.

2. According to Cole 1, the holder is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cubic Corporation which was founded in 1951. In addition to the transportation services, Cubic Corporation is the parent company of two other major business segments: Defense systems and mission support services. These three business segments have generated sales in the billions.

3. The holder commenced its transportation payment and information system business in the early 1970s with magnetic ticketing. The holder was the first company to introduce contactless smart cards to transit in the late 1980s. The holder introduced the first large-scale deployment of smart cards in transit and has delivered over 400 projects in 40 major markets on five continents. The holder’s smart card systems are used in many of the world’s major cities according to Cole 1. Nearly 7 billion rides are taken worldwide each year using the holder’s payment and information systems. The holder has a number of active projects for its services in London, Brisbane, New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Vancouver, Sydney, Germany and Scandinavia. It is clear that the holder’s services are in use or will soon be in use in Australia.

4. According to Cole 1 the holder has a ‘signature’ fare system which is called NEXTFARE. NEXTFARE is a suite of software products designed to work as a system and together function as an end-to-end mass-public transport fare collection system for multiple transport agencies (exhibit MC1).  The holder commenced use of the NEXTFARE trade mark on its fare system in 2000 and commenced using the NEXTFARE trade mark in Australian in 2004. The NEXTFARE system is in operation in Brisbane, Queensland and underpins Brisbane’s go card system. The go card links Queensland Rail regional rail services, Brisbane Transport buses, Brisbane City Council Ferries, private bus operators and the Airtrain rail link to Brisbane International Airport.

5. Cole 1 states that in or around April 2011 the holder introduced its vision for evolution of the NEXTFARE system and it is called NEXTCITY. NEXTCITY will be a fully integrated, whole-of-transport, journey and payments management system (exhibit MC-2). Related products to NEXTCITY include: NEXTFARE, NEXTACCOUNT, NEXTLEDGER, NEXTCONTACT and NEXTINFO. NEXTCITY and the related products have been advertised in Australia September 2011.  

6. The holder launched its NEXTACCOUNT product in or about April 2012. NEXTACCOUNT is the holder’s next-generation account based fare collection and payments engine. The system is designed to work as part of a complete transport fair collection and payments system for multiple transport agencies. NEXTACCOUNT product provides a contactless smart card interface and transit fair processing engine that allows passengers to use a contactless bank-issued credit card, debit or prepaid account, transit issued smart card or mobile phone as their fare payment media (exhibit MC-3).

7. Cole 1 states that the NEXTACCOUNT branded system is in production use in the United States, being deployed in Canada and is being actively promoted in other markets including Australia. The holder’s products and services, including the NEXTACCOUNT system, are marketed predominantly to public agencies, transportation solution providers and other entities implementing revenue management and payment collection systems. It is clear from the evidence that the holder’s main market for its goods and services is highly specialised and that the holder markets its goods and services to very sophisticated buyers.

8. The holder owns a number of trade mark registrations and pending applications for its “NEXT-” family of trade marks not only in Australia but internationally (exhibit MC-4).

Discussion

Section 44 - Identical etc. trade marks:

1. Section 44 of the Act relevantly provides:

2. Identical etc. trade marks

   (1)Subject to subsections (3) and (4), and application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of goods (applicant’s goods) must be rejected if:

   (a)the applicant’s trade mark is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:

   (i)a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar goods or closely related services; or

   (ii)…; and

   (b)the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s goods is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar goods or closely related services.

3. To establish their oppositions in terms section 44 of the Act the opponents must show all of the following:

   • a trade mark (or trade marks), either registered or pending registration, in the name of a person other than the present holder, and in relation to which the opposed trade mark is either substantially identical or deceptively similar;
   • the trade mark(s) in the name of the other person must be in respect of similar goods or closely related services; and
   • the priority date of the trade mark of the other person is earlier than the priority date of the holder’s trade marks.

• In their submissions for the hearing the opponents specified pending trade mark application 1325398 in support of the section 44 ground in both oppositions. Details of this application are as follows:

Trade mark:  NEXT

Owner Name:  Next Group Plc

Priority Date:  13 October 2009

Specification:  Class 9: Sunglasses; glasses; spectacle cases; scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus

Class 14:Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments

Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery

Class 25:Clothing, footwear, headgear

Class 35:Retail services, including retail services offered via a general merchandising and clothing store, mail order catalogue, online, via television channel, via mobile phone and by direct marketing, all connected with the sale of clothing, headgear and footwear, jewellery, watches, fashion accessories, household articles, towels, bedding, textiles, furniture, lighting apparatus, toys, electrical products, cosmetics, non-medicated toilet preparations, eyewear, carrying cases, leather goods, handbags, sports bags, travel bags, shopping bags, toiletry bags, messenger bags, carrier bags, document bags and children's bags, kitchenware, paints, wallpaper, wall stickers and borders, pictures, picture frames, cameras; the provision of information and advice in relation to retail services relating to the aforesaid goods; business management consultancy including giving living assistance and advice in the management of retail stores in the field of the aforesaid goods

1. The priority date for that application is earlier than that of the IRDA and the application is in respect of the similar goods in class 9 to those listed in the IRDA.

2. The opponents have stated that they do not contend that the holder’s trade marks and the above trade mark the subject of the pending application are substantially identical. I agree with the opponents. The opponents’ trade mark and the holders’s trade marks can be seen below:

Opponent’s trade mark	Holder’s trade marks
NEXT	NEXTACCOUNT

1. It is clear from a side by side comparison the trade marks are not substantially identical as they contain certain visual and aural differences (which I will detail later in this decision). Therefore, the key issue to be decided is whether either of the holder’s trade marks are deceptively similar to the opponent’s above NEXT trade mark. Section 10 of the Act indicates that a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another if it so nearly resembles that trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

2. According to the authorities[7] any consideration of whether trade marks are deceptively similar must take into account that consumers may have an imperfect recollection of a trade mark. As a general principle one needs to estimate the impression consumers are likely to form of each trade mark as a whole. Confusion may result if a trade mark incorporates the distinguishing features of another’s trade mark. Justice French in Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd[8] observed in relation to the expression “likely to deceive or cause confusion”:

   … The use of the word “likely” in this context does not import a requirement that it be more probable than not that the mark has that effect. The probability of deception or confusion must be finite and non-trivial. There must be a “real tangible danger of its occurring” …

   [7] Clark v Sharp (1898) 15 RPC 141 at 146; Re Application by the Pianotist Co Ltd (1906) 23 RPC 774; Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F.S. Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641; Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd (1943) 60 RPC 87; Cordova v Vick Chemical Co (1951) 68 RPC 103; Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 536; Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411

   [8] supra

3. The concepts ‘deceive’ and ‘cause confusion’ were considered in Pioneer Hi-Bred  Corn  Co v Hy-Line Chicks Pty Ltd[9] where it was stated :

   ‘Deceived’ implies the creation of an incorrect belief or mental impression and ‘causing confusion’ may go no further than perplexing or mixing up the minds of the purchasing public .... Where the deception or confusion alleged is as to the source of the goods, deceived is equivalent to being misled into thinking that the goods bearing the applicant's mark come from some other source and confused to being caused to wonder whether that might not be the case.

   [9] (1979) RPC 410 at 423

1. Thus I need to decide whether the concurrent use of the respective trade marks in relation to similar goods in class 9 is likely to result in a tangible danger of confusion or deception. In coming to this decision it is important that the trade marks are considered in their entirety – ‘it is the whole mark as used which is the subject of the comparison with the registered mark.’[10]

   [10] Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182, 218 (Allsop J).

2. In comparing the respective trade marks it becomes apparent that NEXTACCOUNT and NEXTACCOUNT are similar to the opponents’ NEXT trade mark in that they have NEXT as their first element. In issues of imperfect recollection the fact that trade marks have a common first element may be of significance[11]. However, the holder’s trade marks contain the additional word/suffix “-ACCOUNT” and in the case of IRDA 1444389 there is an additional double triangular device element. The suffix “-ACCOUNT” is an additional factor that would be likely to recalled. Particularly since this additional word/suffix is significant and considerably adds to the length of the trade marks when viewed or spoken. Ultimately,:

   One must bear in mind the points of resemblance and the points of dissimilarity, attaching fair weight and importance of all, but remembering that the ultimate solution is to be arrived at, not by adding up and comparing the results of such matters, but by judging the general effect of the respective wholes.[12]

   [11] See In the Matter of London Lubricants (1920) Limited's Application to Register a Trade Mark (1925) 42 RPC 264 at 279.

   [12] Clark v Sharp (1898) 15 RPC 141 at 146 (Ch D).

3. The opponents’ written submissions state that because all the trade marks contain the word/prefix NEXT that the trade marks are deceptively similar even with the addition of the word/suffix ACCOUNT. They argue that the word ACCOUNT is descriptive of the class 9 goods so that its addition to the holder’s trade marks does not add anything to the trade marks and that the distinctive term remains, NEXT.

4. I do not agree.  The word ACCOUNT has a number of definitions which may arguably be used in relation to computer software or computer hardware but it is not descriptive of these goods to the point where its presence can be discounted when estimating the impressions likely to be formed of the trade marks. I am not satisfied there is a real tangible danger of use of the  trade marks resulting in confusion  in the marketplace for  the holder’s goods in class 9 and the opponent’s similar goods.

5. In view of my finding that the opposed trade marks are not deceptively similar to the NEXT trade mark the opponents have not established the opposition ground based on section 44 of the Act.

Section 60 – Reputation in Australia

1. Section 60 of the Act provides:

2. Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia

The registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services may be opposed on the ground that:

(a)another trade mark had, before the priority date for the registration of the first‑mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services, acquired a reputation in Australia; and

(b)because of the reputation of that other trade mark, the use of the first‑mentioned trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion

1. To establish the ground of opposition under section 60, the opponents must demonstrate:

• That, at the priority dates of the IRDA, another trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia; and

• That because of the reputation of the second trade mark, use of the opposed trade marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. The opponents are relying on the reputation of the NEXT trade mark. Unlike section 44 of the Act, section 60 does not require that the goods for which the trade mark has acquired a reputation be similar to the holder’s goods of interest, nor is there a requirement that the trade marks be substantially identical or deceptively similar. It is now for me to determine whether the NEXT trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia before the priority dates of the IRDAs and that, because of that reputation, use of the opposed trade marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. This is more than merely demonstrating prior use of the NEXT trade mark. The trade mark needs to be “associated in the minds of the Australian public”[13].

   [13] Seven Up Co v OT Ltd (1947) 75 CLR 203 at 211

2. In relation to reputation Kenny J states in McCormick & Co Inc. v McCormick, 51 IPR 102, at 128:

   In ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302 at 343; 23 IPR 193 at 234, Lockhart J said:

   [R]eputation within the jurisdiction may be proved by a variety of means including advertisements on television or radio, or in magazines and newspapers within the forum.

3. At 129 Kenny J continues:

   In practice, it is commonplace to infer reputation from a high volume of sales, together with substantial advertising expenditures and other promotions, without any direct evidence of consumer appreciation of the mark, as opposed to the product:…

4. It is clear from the evidence that the NEXT trade mark has a very substantial reputation overseas, in the UK in particular, and that there has been a significant level of advertising which has resulted in growing sales as the years have progressed (Paragraphs 8 and 10 of Waterland 1). However, sales of NEXT branded goods directly to Australian consumers via the opponents website for the financial years 2010 until 2012 are relatively small by comparison (Paragraph 11 of Waterland 2). To this end, the opponents have provided evidence of the significant flow of tourists between Australia and the UK (Annexure SLW7 and SLW8 accompanying Waterland 2). I accept that the significant presence of its NEXT stores selling NEXT branded clothing and homewares is not likely to have escaped the attention of a number of Australian tourists.

5. I am satisfied that within the Australian marketplace for clothing and homewares, the NEXT trade mark had acquired a reputation in by the respective priority dates. However it needs to be determined if, given this reputation for clothing and homewares in Australia, use of the opposed trade marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

6. In Pottle Productions Inc v Rute Ithalat Ve Ihracat Anonim Sirketi[14] the Registrar’s delegate observed that:

   The assessment of the likelihood of deception or confusion under section 60 is informed by the strength of the reputation of the Opponent’s trade mark(s), the inherent distinctiveness thereof, the degree of similarity between the trade marks under consideration and the nexus or connection between the goods and/or services of the parties. Each of these is a variable and it is possible that a trade mark’s reputation might be sufficiently strong and the degree of similarity to an opposed trade mark be so great (particularly where the trade marks are inherently distinctive) that confusion or deception will be a likelihood where very little, if any, nexus or connection exists between the goods and/or services under consideration.

   [14] [2012] ATMO 124 at [40]

7. In the present matter the holder’s trade marks will be used in relation to vastly different goods to those for which the NEXT trade mark has acquired a reputation. The opponents’ evidence does now show any use of the NEXT trade mark on goods similar to those listed in the IRDA.  The onus is on the opponents to satisfy me that there is a real likelihood of deception or confusion.

8. Additionally, there is no evidence before me of any actual confusion in the marketplace in relation to the origin of the holder’s and opponents’ respective goods provided under the respective trade marks. I am not satisfied that the holder’s use of its trade marks will result in any significant degree of deception. The opponents have not established the section 60 ground of opposition.

Decision

1. Subregulation 17A.34(1) at the date on which the IRDAs were opposed provided:

   17A.34(1) Unless the opposition proceedings are discontinued or dismissed, the Registrar must decide:

   (a) to refuse protection in respect of all of the goods or services listed in the IRDA; or

   (b) to extend protection in respect of some or all of the goods or services listed in the IRDA (with or without conditions or limitations);

   having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the IRDA was opposed has been established.

2. The opponents have not established either of the grounds of opposition that they pressed. Therefore, it is my decision that protection of the IRDAs for all the listed goods may be extended one month from the date of this decision.

3. If the Registrar has been served with a notice of appeal before that time, I direct that protection shall not occur until the appeal has been decided with protection proceeding or discontinued or, if this decision be successfully appealed, that the application be dealt with as the Court sees fit. If the Registrar has not been served with a notice of appeal before that time the IB will be notified of this decision as soon as practicable after the appeal period has ended, in accord with reg 17A.34(2).

Costs

1. It is usual for costs to follow the event, and I see no reason to depart from that principle here. I award costs in each opposition against the unsuccessful opponent, Next Retail Limited and Next Group Plc respectively, according to the official scale set out in Schedule 8 of the Regulations.

   Bianca Irgang

   Hearing Officer

   Trade Marks Hearings

   29 May 2015