Omega SA (Omega SA) (Omega Ltd) v Mr Mark Robinson and Ms Brenda Robinson

Omega SA (the Opponent) sought an extension of time to serve evidence in opposition proceedings against Mr Mark Robinson and Ms Brenda Robinson (the Applicants). The matter was heard by Debrett Lyons, a Hearing Officer, on 1 February 2011, with both parties relying on oral submissions. The core of the dispute concerned the Opponent's ability to meet the deadlines for filing evidence in support of its opposition.

The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether to grant the Opponent an extension of time to serve its evidence, and if so, on what terms. This required consideration of the requirements under Regulation 5.15 of the *Trade Mark Regulations 1995*, which governs applications for extensions of time, and the Registrar's published benchmarks for the preparation and service of evidence. The Hearing Officer also had to determine if the Opponent had demonstrated "compelling reasons" for an extension beyond the established benchmarks, as outlined in IP Australia's guidelines.

The Hearing Officer reasoned that the onus was on the Opponent to establish that an extension was appropriate, particularly if it extended beyond the Registrar's benchmarks. The Opponent had not provided sufficient proof that the evidence it intended to rely on would support all pending oppositions, nor was there any assurance that the evidence would not be tailored to suit different cases. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was not reasonably satisfied that granting the extension was appropriate.

The application for an extension of time was refused. The parties were notified that, unless the decision is appealed, the due date for the service of a copy of the evidence in answer to the opposition is three months from the date of the decision, 14 February 2011.