Opposition by Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1993395 (classes 24, 33, 35 and 43) – Richmond Park Estate – in the names of Clare Frances Eddington and William...

Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd (the Opponent) opposed the registration of trade mark application number 1993395, for the mark RICHMOND PARK ESTATE, filed by Clare Frances Eddington and William... (the Applicant). The opposition was brought under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), alleging that the applied-for mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to registered marks owned by the Opponent. The proceedings were heard by Debrett Lyons, Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the trade mark RICHMOND PARK ESTATE was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the Opponent's registered trade marks RICHMOND GROVE (registration number 1206194) and a composite mark including RICHMOND GROVE (registration number 849938), both registered for wines. The Opponent contended that if substantial identity or deceptive similarity was found, section 44(1) of the Act would be enlivened, leading to the rejection of the application.

The Hearing Officer applied the ordinary civil standard of proof, based on the balance of probabilities, noting that the onus rested upon the Opponent. The rights of the parties were to be assessed as at 4 March 2019, the filing and priority date of the application. The Hearing Officer considered the comparison between RICHMOND PARK ESTATE and the word mark RICHMOND GROVE, as the graphic elements of the composite mark were not discussed and the prior marks covered identical goods to those in class 33 of the application. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Opponent had not established the ground of opposition under section 44.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer directed that the trade mark application proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served on the Registrar within that period. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the Opponent, as costs typically follow the event.