Next Retail Limited

This matter concerned an application by Next Retail Limited for an extension of time to serve evidence in opposition proceedings. The Registrar was required to determine whether to grant this application.

The legal issues before the Registrar were whether the requirements of Regulation 5.15 of the relevant regulations were met, specifically concerning the applicant's service of the application on the other party, the opportunity for representations, and whether granting the extension was appropriate. The Registrar also had to consider the established guidelines for extension applications, including the need for a reasonable explanation for the delay and the absence of undue delay by the applicant.

The Registrar applied the principles from leading cases such as *Vangedal-Nielsen v Smith* and *Lyons v Registrar of Trade Marks*, as summarised in *Exxonmobil Oil Corporation v Shahin Enterprises*. The Registrar noted that the explanation provided in the declaration of Sally Shrimpton, while perhaps "sparse," was considered sufficient based on the standard accepted in *Lyons*, where a similar request for additional time to prepare evidence was deemed acceptable. The Registrar also referred to the decision in *Next Retail Ltd v Cubic Transportation Systems Inc*, which emphasised the flexible application of guidelines according to the circumstances and acknowledged that delays can be reasonable when parties liaise with local branches for necessary financial information. The relevant date for assessing delay was the date of the extension application, 28 February 2013.

The Registrar was satisfied that the applicant had served the application and that the other party had been given an opportunity to make representations. The Registrar found that the explanation for the delay was adequate and that there had not been undue delay on the part of the applicant, deeming the extension appropriate. Consequently, the Registrar granted the application for an extension of time.