Opposition by SO Nominees Pty Limited as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust to registration of trade mark application number 2182437 (class 43) – SOUL BROTHERS (word) – in the name of Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko
[2024] ATMO 183
•27 September 2024
TRADE MARKS ACT 1995
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Opposition by SO Nominees Pty Limited as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust to registration of trade mark application number 2182437 (class 43) – SOUL BROTHERS (word) – in the name of Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko
Delegate: | Benjamin Goldsworthy |
Representation: | Opponent: Self-represented Applicant: LegalVision |
Decision: | 2024 ATMO 183 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – application under section 52 – grounds of opposition under ss 41, 43, 44, 58A and 60 considered – none established – trade mark may proceed to registration |
Background
On 2 June 2021 (‘Relevant Date’) Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko (‘Applicants’) filed trade mark application 2182437 under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Act’),[1] details of which I reproduce below:
Priority date: 2 June 2021
Trade mark: SOUL BROTHERS (‘Trade Mark’)
Specification: Class 43: Restaurant services; Providing food and drink; Preparation of food and drink; Takeaway food and drink services; Hospitality services (food and drink); Restaurants; Arranging for the provision of food; Take away food services (‘Designated Services’)
[1] A reference in these reasons to a section is a reference to such in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
The Trade Mark was examined under s 31 and acceptance was advertised on 3 November 2021. On 22 December 2021, SO Nominees Pty Limited as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust (‘Opponent’) filed its Notice of Intention to Oppose. On 17 January 2022, the Opponent filed its Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’). On 22 April 2022, the Applicants filed their Notice of Intention to Defend.
The Opponent’s Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) was due to be filed 29 July 2022. On 26 July 2022, the Opponent requested an extension of time to file its EIS. A delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks (‘Registrar’) expressed an intention to refuse the request for an extension of time. After submissions in writing, a delegate heard the matter and ultimately on 29 September 2023 decided that the request for an extension of time to file EIS would be refused.[2]
[2] SO Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust v Denis Kendes and Eunjeong Ko [2023] ATMO 146 (Hearing Officer T Brown).
On 23 November 2023, the Applicants notified this office that they would not be filing Evidence in Answer.
On 5 December 2023, the Opponent requested to be heard by way of written submissions. On 13 December 2023, the Applicants requested to be heard by way of written submissions. On 4 July 2024, the Opponent filed a statutory declaration of Hao Tu Quach, director of the Opponent, dated 4 July 2024 (‘Quach’) with Annexure HTQ-1. The Applicants’ written submissions, prepared by Christopher Parker from LegalVision, followed on 11 July 2024. I am to decide this matter as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
Grounds and Onus
The SGP nominates grounds of opposition under ss 41, 43, 44, 58A and 60. The Opponent has the onus of demonstrating one or more of the grounds of opposition, on the balance of probabilities.[3] The assessment of the rights of the parties is as at the Relevant Date.[4]
[3] Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663 (‘Pfizer’), [22] (Gyles J); Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).
[4] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592, 595 (Kitto J) (‘Southern Cross’).
Preliminary
Quach is a mixture of submissions as to the grounds of opposition and statements of fact. The Annexures to Quach provide copies of earlier registered trade marks. A delegate of the Registrar found that the EIS was not to be the subject of an extension of time. To the extent that Quach provides factual statements which should have been filed at the EIS phase of the proceedings it amounts to evidence that has been filed out of time. Evidence filed out of time requires a compelling case to made for it to be afforded weight.[5]
[5] Trade Marks Manual of Practice and Procedure, Part 5.2.5.
Even if I were to give weight to the factual statements in Quach, they would demonstrate little because of the lack of corroborating information and evidence. The factual assertions do not change the outcome of these proceedings. Importantly, the Opponent has given no compelling reason why I should give the factual material weight in these proceedings. By giving weight to these factual statements filed at such a late stage in these proceedings, it would effectively deny the Applicants the ability to provide evidence in answer. I give no weight to the statements of fact in Quach as they are uncorroborated and amount to evidence that has been filed out of time.
The Applicants object to review of material appearing in a letter addressed to this office, dated 9 March 2022, which seeks to rectify the SGP and provide information about the Opponent. The Applicants’ lawyer asserts that the Applicants have not had an opportunity to respond to this material. This material forms part of the SGP and I give it weight and I note that the Applicants were provided a copy of this material in a letter from this office on 22 March 2022.
Discussion
Section 41
Section 41 provides:
41Trade mark not distinguishing applicant’s goods or services
(1) An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is sought to be registered (the designated goods or services) from the goods or services of other persons.
Note: For goods of a person and services of a person see section 6.
(2) A trade mark is taken not to be capable of distinguishing the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons only if either subsection (3) or (4) applies to the trade mark.
(3) This subsection applies to a trade mark if:
(a) the trade mark is not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons; and
(b) the applicant has not used the trade mark before the filing date in respect of the application to such an extent that the trade mark does in fact distinguish the designated goods or services as being those of the applicant.
(4) This subsection applies to a trade mark if:
(a) the trade mark is, to some extent, but not sufficiently, inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods or services from the goods or services of other persons; and
(b) the trade mark does not and will not distinguish the designated goods or services as being those of the applicant having regard to the combined effect of the following:
(i) the extent to which the trade mark is inherently adapted to distinguish the goods or services from the goods or services of other persons;
(ii) the use, or intended use, of the trade mark by the applicant;
(iii) any other circumstances.
Note 1: Trade marks that are not inherently adapted to distinguish goods or services are mostly trade marks that consist wholly of a sign that is ordinarily used to indicate:
(a) the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or some other characteristic, of goods or services; or
(b) the time of production of goods or of the rendering of services.
Note 2: For goods of a person and services of a person see section 6.
Note 3: Use of a trade mark by a predecessor in title of an applicant and an authorised use of a trade mark by another person are each taken to be use of the trade mark by the applicant (see subsections (5) and 7(3) and section 8).
…
In deciding whether a s 41 ground of opposition exists, I must ask whether the Trade Mark is capable of distinguishing the Designated Services as those of the Applicants from those of other traders. If I am satisfied that the Trade Mark is not so capable, s 41 requires that the Trade Mark be rejected.
Relevant to the assessment of capability to distinguish is whether the Trade Mark has ‘inherent adaptation’ to distinguish. If the Trade Mark has ‘sufficient inherent adaptation to distinguish’ the Designated Services, a s 41 ground for rejection does not exist. However, if I am satisfied that the Trade Mark does not have sufficient inherent adaptation to distinguish, the next question will be whether it has any inherent adaptation to distinguish. If the Trade Mark has no inherent adaptation, it must be rejected only if I am satisfied that at its priority date it did not in fact so distinguish, taking account of the extent of the Applicants’ use.[6] If the Trade Mark has some inherent adaptation to distinguish, it should be rejected only if I am satisfied that, after considering the level of inherent adaptation of the Trade Mark, the extent of the Applicants’ use, and other relevant circumstances, the Trade Mark did not or would not distinguish the Designated Services.[7]
[6] Section 41(3).
[7] Section 41(4).
The first step in determining the inherent distinctiveness is to determine the ordinary signification of the Trade Mark. The ordinary signification is the ordinary meaning of the words ‘SOUL BROTHERS’ to persons in Australia who purchase, consume or trade in the Designated Services.
The SGP states the following with respect to the s 41 ground of opposition:
We note that the proposed Trade Mark is not capable of distinguishing the goods or services from those of Soul Origin. We note that Soul Origins Trade Mark has an established reputation connected with the words “Soul Origin” and subsequent logos. Specifically, we note that Soul Brothers trades in a similar class of services as Soul Origin Specifically, we note that Soul Brothers sells many similar goods to Soul Origin and as such given their proposed similar trade mark it is unlikely a consumer would be able to distinguish between the goods. The word “SOUL” has become synonymous with the brand Soul Origin. This is especially the case in the industry that takeaway food and coffee industry (of which Soul Origin trades in). The Applicants Trade Mark draws upon the goodwill that Soul Origin has ascertained in the takeaway food and coffee industry for the past 11 years and the applicants trademark would be in the same industry as Soul Origin
The words SOUL BROTHERS have a known meaning referring to ‘a male friend of a man, especially one with whom he has a close rapport’.[8] The submissions of the Opponent that the Trade Mark refers to the Opponent does not establish any of the requirements for applicability of s 41. The Act requires that there be an ordinary signification in relation to the Designated Services to establish the s 41 ground of opposition. I have no difficulty finding that the Trade Mark does not describe any character or characteristic of the Designated Services and does not have an ‘ordinary signification’ in relation to the Designated Services. Without an ordinary signification in relation to the Designated Services there cannot be a ground of opposition under s 41.
[8] Macquarie Dictionary (Online, accessed 22 August 2024) ‘soul brother’.
Accordingly, the ground of opposition under s 41 is not established.
Section 44
Section 44 relevantly provides:
44 Identical etc. trade marks
…
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), an application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of services (applicant’s services) must be rejected if:
(a) it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:
(i) a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar services or closely related goods; or
(ii) a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar services or closely related goods is being sought by another person; and
(b) the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s services is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar services or closely related goods.
…
By its SGP and written submissions for its s 44 ground of opposition, the Opponent relies on registered trade marks 1845178, 2005013, 1456285 and 1845169 (‘Opponent’s Trade Marks’), all in the name of SO Nominees Pty Limited as trustee for Soul Origin IP Unit Trust. I extract the details of the Opponent’s Trade Marks below:
Trade mark number: 1456285
Trade mark: Soul Origin
Priority date: 28 October 2011
Specification: Class 43: Cafe services; cafes; self-service cafeteria services; coffee shop services; food and drink catering; preparation of food and drink; preparation of take-away and fast food; providing food and drink; providing information, including online, about services for providing food and drink, and temporary accommodation; provision of information relating to the preparation of food and drink; takeaway food and drink services
Trade mark number: 1845169
Trade mark: Soul Origin
Priority date: 16 May 2017
Specification: Classes 29, 30 and 35 – Schedule 1
Trade mark number: 1845178
Trade mark:
Priority date: 16 May 2017
Specification: Classes 29, 30, 35 and 43 – Schedule 2
Trade mark number: 2005013
Trade Mark: SOUL MATE
Priority date: 10 May 2019
Specification: Classes 29, 30, 35, 39 and 43 – Schedule 3
The Opponent’s Trade Marks have priority dates which are before the Relevant Date. The Opponent’s Trade Marks are also in the name of a person other than the Applicants. Plainly all the Designated Services are either the same as or are notionally included in the services in class 43 of 1456285, 1845178 and 2005013. If the opposition based on 1456285 for the s 44 ground fails, then it will also fail in respect of 1845169 and 1845178. Accordingly, the focus from here is a comparison of the Trade Mark with the trade marks SOUL ORIGIN and SOUL MATE.
Substantially identical
The test for whether two trade marks are substantially identical is expounded in Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd:
In considering whether marks are substantially identical they should, I think, be compared side by side, their similarities and differences noted and the importance of these assessed having regard to the essential features of the registered mark and the total impression of resemblance or dissimilarity that emerges from the comparison.[9]
[9] [1963] HCA 66, [12] (Windeyer J).
1456285 and 1845178 contain or consist of the words SOUL ORIGIN whereas the Trade Mark consists of the words SOUL BROTHERS. 2005013 consists of the words SOUL MATE. Whilst the word ‘soul’ appears in all of the trade marks, the differences are of significance. When I compare the trade marks side by side, a total impression of dissimilarity emerges especially because of the word differences. I am not satisfied that the Trade Mark is substantially identical to any of the Opponent’s Trade Marks.
Deceptively similar
I also must consider whether the Trade Mark is deceptively similar to any of the Opponent’s Trade Marks. Section 10 provides that a trade mark is deceptively similar to another trade mark if it ‘so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion’. I must compare the respective trade marks as wholes,[10] with regard to essential or distinguishing features,[11] and consider them visually and aurally, and in the context of the relevant surrounding circumstances.[12] Also of importance is the effect and meaning of the trade marks,[13] especially their effect or impression produced on the mind of ordinary consumers.[14] I should account for imperfect recollection of those ordinary consumers and the addition of even a single word can in the right circumstances relevantly differentiate one remembered mark from another in the minds of those consumers.[15] Ultimately, what is required is a real tangible danger of confusion.[16] That is, ‘a real likelihood that some people will wonder or be left in doubt about whether the two sets of products … come from the same source’.[17]
[10] Torpedoes Sportswear Pty Limited v Thorpedo Enterprises Pty Limited [2003] FCA 901, [78] (Bennett J).
[11] Crazy Ron’s Communications v Mobileworld Communications [2004] FCAFC 196, [77]-[88] (Moore, Sackville and Emmett JJ).
[12] New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co Ltd (1989) 86 ALR 549, 589 (Gummow J).
[13] Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8, [51] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman and Gleeson JJ) (‘Self Care’).
[14] Ibid [51] and [67], citing Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 (Dixon and McTiernan JJ) (‘Australian Woollen Mills’).
[15] Jockey International Inc v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22 (Hearing Officer Spence).
[16] Southern Cross (n 4) 595 (Kitto J); Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths [1999] FCA 1020, [50](i) (French J) (‘Woolworths’); Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd [2000] HCA 12, [83] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
[17] Woolworths ibid [50](ii); Southern Cross (n 4) 594-595 (Kitto J). See also, Australian Woollen Mills (n 14) 658.
Fundamentally, it is the effect on the minds of the ordinary consumers which I must compare. I cannot have recourse to the reputation, if any, of the Opponent or the Opponent’s Trade Marks. The meaning in the combination of words SOUL BROTHERS set it apart, and as distinct from the words SOUL ORIGIN. Whilst both trade marks commence with the word SOUL, the different terminating words have a high importance on the whole trade marks in terms of meaning, pronunciation and visual appearance. The Trade Mark conjures the idea of two male friends. 2005013 consists of the words SOUL MATE, which also has a known meaning referring to, ‘one of two or more persons who share common interests, temperaments, and aspirations’, sometimes romantically so.[18] Whilst SOUL BROTHERS is in the plural form and refers to one or more persons, 2005013 appears to be in the singular form.
[18] Macqaurie 22 August 2024.
I contrast the comparisons I must make with those made in Juniper Holdings No 3 Pty Ltd v Juniper Property Holdings No 15 Pty Ltd,[19] where the delegate compared the trade mark SOUL BOARDWALK with the trade marks SOUL, SOUL OCEANFRONT and SOUL AUSTRALIA. There the delegate found that SOUL itself was the essential element of the trade marks and that the, ‘identity of “soul” is not subsumed into the meaning of the Trade Marks as a whole’.[20] Here, the totalities of SOUL BROTHERS when compared with the words SOUL MATE and SOUL ORIGIN would result in distinct effects on the minds of the ordinary consumers of the Designated Services. The word SOUL in SOUL BROTHERS is subsumed into the meaning of the Trade Mark as a whole. I would analogise the comparisons I must make to that which the court made in Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd[21] where the High Court of Australia compared the trade marks RAIN MASTER and RAIN KING, both in respect of goods being raincoats. The court found that the suffix elements of the respective trade marks resulted in distinct wholes. Whilst there is some conceptual convergence in that they broadly refer to what might be a companion(s) of some kind, the trade marks here have various verbal and visual differences, and the overall meanings also remain distinct. I am not satisfied that there is a real and tangible danger of confusion.
[19] [2017] ATMO 92 (Hearing Officer K Brown).
[20] Ibid, [51].
[21] [1952] HCA 15 (Dixon, Williams and Kitto JJ).
Accordingly, the s 44 ground of opposition has not been established.
Section 58A
The Opponent also relies upon s 58A, which provides:
58A Opponent’s earlier use of similar trade mark
(1) This section applies to a trade mark (section 44 trade mark) the application for registration of which has been accepted because of:
(a) subsection 44(4); or
(b) a similar provision of the regulations made for the purposes of Part 17A.
Note: Subsection 44(4) prevents rejection of an application for registration of a trade mark that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark or a trade mark whose registration is being sought where the first‑mentioned trade mark has been continuously used since before the priority date of the other trade mark.
(2) The registration of the section 44 trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the owner of the substantially identical or deceptively similar trade mark (similar trade mark) or the predecessor in title:
(a) first used the similar trade mark in respect of:
(i) similar goods or closely related services; or
(ii) similar services or closely related goods;
before the owner of the section 44 trade mark or the predecessor in title in relation to the section 44 trade mark first used the section 44 trade mark; and
(b) has continuously used the similar trade mark in respect of those goods or services since that first use.
The application for the Trade Mark has not been accepted on the basis of s 44(4). As such,
s 58A of the Act is not enlivened in the present circumstances.Consequently, the s 58A ground of opposition has not be established.
Section 60
The Opponent also relies upon s 60, which provides:
60 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.
Note: For priority date see section 12.
A relevant ‘reputation’ for the purposes of s 60 cannot simply be assumed.[22] It is the Opponent who must establish that a reputation exists as a matter of fact.[23] The word ‘reputation’ here means ‘the recognition of the [trade mark] by the public generally’.[24] The Opponent may demonstrate such a reputation by a variety of means, including quantum of sales or advertising and promotional activities.[25] Advertisements or other appearances of the other trade mark on television, radio or in magazines and newspapers may also be relevant. The required reputation is most often inferred from a high volume of sales, together with substantial advertising expenditures and other promotions.[26] Direct evidence of consumer appreciation of a mark, while often harder to produce, is another avenue for showing that a reputation exists.[27]
[22] ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159, [77] (Lockhart J).
[23] Ibid. See also, Sara Lee Corp v Bali Blue Pty Ltd [2003] ATMO 81.
[24] McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335 (‘McCormick’), [127] (Kenny J).
[25] Rodney Jane Racing Pty Ltd v Monster Energy Company [2019] FCA 923, [83] (O’Bryan J).
[26] McCormick (n 24) [80] (Kenny J).
[27] Ibid.
The SGP states that
Trademarks number 1456285 and 1845169 have been used in Australia since 2011. The Trademarks are registered in the Classes 29, 30,35 and 43 including for goods including salads, vegetables and vegetable based products, coffee and milk based products, fruit and fruit based products and the provision of cafe and takeaway services. Trademark number 1845178 has been used in Australia since 2017 under class 29, 30,35 and 43 including for goods including salads, vegetables and vegetable based products, coffee and milk based products, fruit and fruit based products and the provision of cafe and takeaway services…
Nothing other than bare statements in the SGP in respect of the s 60 ground of opposition were provided. I agree with the Applicants that the materials validly filed by the Opponent are incapable of supporting a finding that there is a reputation in any earlier trade mark for the purposes of s 60. For completeness I note again that none of the information in Quach is corroborated so it would not change the outcome of this decision regarding the existence of any reputation in an earlier trade mark. Since no reputation has been established, it is not necessary to consider the test in s 60(b).
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the ground of opposition under s 60 has been established.
Section 43
The Opponent also relies upon s 43, which provides
43 Trade mark likely to deceive or cause confusion
An application for the registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services must be rejected if, because of some connotation that the trade mark or a sign contained in the trade mark has, the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
Section 43 requires that the Opponent identify a connotation in the Trade Mark, or a part of it, and that because of that connotation, the use of the Trade Mark in relation to the Designated Services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. It is long established that the ‘connotation’ is one which must be inherent in, and arising from, the Trade Mark itself.[28] Section 43 is not generally directed to deception or confusion caused by a reputation in Australia of some other trade mark. The existence of the another trade mark, registered or not, itself is not sufficient. No evidence of, or identification of, an intrinsic connotation in the Trade Mark has been provided.[29] With no such connotation to consider, I cannot be satisfied that because of some connotation in the Trade Mark, use of the Trade Mark in relation to the Designated Services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
[28] Primary Health Care Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] FCAFC 174, [140] (Katzmann J); Pfizer (n 3) [53] (Gyles J).
[29] Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP v Stepsam Investments Pty Ltd [2002] ATMO 93 (Purvis-Smith)
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the ground of opposition under s 43 has been established.
Decision and costs
Section 55 relevantly provides:
55 Decision
(1) Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:
(a) to refuse to register the trade mark; or
(b) to register the trade mark (with or without conditions or limitations) in respect of the goods and/or services then specified in the application;
having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the application was opposed has been established.
Note: For limitations see section 6.
The Opponent has not established any ground of opposition. Accordingly, trade mark 2182437 may proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision.
If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal before that time, I direct that registration shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued and the disposition of the application should otherwise be in accordance with the Court’s order or direction.
The Applicants have requested costs. It is normal for costs to follow the event. I see no reason to make an exception here. I award costs against the Opponent under s 221 in the amounts according to Schedule 8 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth).
Benjamin Goldsworthy
Hearing Officer
Oppositions and Hearings
Trade Marks and Designs
27 September 2024
Schedule 1
Class 29: Prepared salads; salads; salads containing meat; salads containing poultry; potato salad; vegetable salads; fruit salads; food products made from cooked vegetables; food products made from dried vegetables; food products made from preserved vegetables; fresh, pre-cut, ready to serve vegetables; prepared vegetables; prepared meals consisting principally of cheese, fish, meat, vegetables, poultry and/or seafood; cooked potatoes with filling; soups; preparations for making soup; eggs; dips in this class namely dairy based dips, egg based dips, meat based dips, seafood based dips, vegetable based dips; fish; meat; fresh game; fresh poultry; meat extracts; yoghurt; yoghurt containing pulped fruits; flavoured yoghurt; soya yoghurt; dairy desserts (except ice cream or frozen yoghurt); cheese; combinations of cheese and fruit; cooked fruits; food products made from cooked fruits; food products made from dried fruits; food products made from preserved fruits; preserved fruits; fruit based snack food; prepared foods consisting principally of fruits; frosted fruits; frozen fruits; mixed fruit; aerated beverages (predominantly of milk); beverages made from milk; almond milk beverages; fruit flavoured beverages having a milk base; drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; flavoured milk; beverages made from yoghurt; drinks flavoured with spices and having a base of milk; edible seeds; spices; vegetable based dips
Class 30: Salad dressings; breakfast cereals; foodstuffs made with cereals; preparations for making cereals; muesli; muesli desserts; snacks manufactured from muesli; bread; filled bread products; pastries; confectionery; mixes for the preparation of bread; tortillas; sandwiches; toasted sandwiches; sandwiches containing salad; wraps (sandwiches); toasted wraps (sandwiches); rice paper; cereal based snack food; snack foods consisting principally of pasta; snack foods consisting principally of rice; snack bars containing a mixture of grains, nuts and dried fruit (confectionery); snack foods prepared from grains; pasta salads; rice salads; flavourings for soups (other than essential oils); pasta products; prepared meals containing (principally) pasta; quiches; coffee; iced coffee; aerated beverages (with coffee, cocoa or chocolate base); beverages made from coffee; tea; chai tea; beverages with tea base; fruit flavoured tea (other than medicinal); fruit tea (other than for medical purposes); herbal tea (other than for medicinal use); iced tea; tisanes made of tea; beverages made from cocoa or chocolate; ice beverages with a chocolate or cocoa base; chocolate; cocoa; chocolate based products; cocoa based products; edible ices; ice cream; frozen yoghurt; yoghurt confectionery; dips in this class namely chocolate based dips, mustard based dips; salt; honey; mustard; vinegar; sauces (condiments); spices; food pastes in this class
Class 35: Retail services; management of a retail enterprise for others; Presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; wholesale services; Business advice and consultancy relating to franchising, business franchising consultancy; management advisory services related to franchising; business advisory services relating to establishment and operation of franchises; provision of business information relating to franchising; business assistance relating to franchising; administration of the business affairs of franchises; procurement services (purchasing goods and services for franchisees); sales promotions for others; franchising consultancy and business support services; distribution of goods (not being transport services); the bringing together, for the benefit of others, a variety of goods (excluding the transport thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the goods
Schedule 2
Class 29: Prepared salads; salads; salads containing meat; salads containing poultry; potato salad; vegetable salads; fruit salads; food products made from cooked vegetables; food products made from dried vegetables; food products made from preserved vegetables; fresh, pre-cut, ready to serve vegetables; prepared vegetables; prepared meals consisting principally of cheese, fish, meat, vegetables, poultry and/or seafood; cooked potatoes with filling; soups; preparations for making soup; eggs; dips in this class namely dairy based dips, egg based dips, meat based dips, seafood based dips, vegetable based dips; fish; meat; fresh game; fresh poultry; meat extracts; yoghurt; yoghurt containing pulped fruits; flavoured yoghurt; soya yoghurt; dairy desserts (except ice cream or frozen yoghurt); cheese; combinations of cheese and fruit; cooked fruits; food products made from cooked fruits; food products made from dried fruits; food products made from preserved fruits; preserved fruits; fruit based snack food; prepared foods consisting principally of fruits; frosted fruits; frozen fruits; mixed fruit; aerated beverages (predominantly of milk); beverages made from milk; almond milk beverages; fruit flavoured beverages having a milk base; drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; flavoured milk; beverages made from yoghurt; drinks flavoured with spices and having a base of milk; edible seeds; spices; vegetable based dips
Class 30: Salad dressings; breakfast cereals; foodstuffs made with cereals; preparations for making cereals; muesli; muesli desserts; snacks manufactured from muesli; bread; filled bread products; pastries; confectionery; mixes for the preparation of bread; tortillas; sandwiches; toasted sandwiches; sandwiches containing salad; wraps (sandwiches); toasted wraps (sandwiches); rice paper; cereal based snack food; snack foods consisting principally of pasta; snack foods consisting principally of rice; snack bars containing a mixture of grains, nuts and dried fruit (confectionery); snack foods prepared from grains; pasta salads; rice salads; flavourings for soups (other than essential oils); pasta products; prepared meals containing (principally) pasta; quiches; coffee; iced coffee; aerated beverages (with coffee, cocoa or chocolate base); beverages made from coffee; tea; chai tea; beverages with tea base; fruit flavoured tea (other than medicinal); fruit tea (other than for medical purposes); herbal tea (other than for medicinal use); iced tea; tisanes made of tea; beverages made from cocoa or chocolate; ice beverages with a chocolate or cocoa base; chocolate; cocoa; chocolate based products; cocoa based products; edible ices; ice cream; frozen yoghurt; yoghurt confectionery; dips in this class namely chocolate based dips, mustard based dips; salt; honey; mustard; vinegar; sauces (condiments); spices; food pastes in this class
Class 35: Retail services; management of a retail enterprise for others; Presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; wholesale services; Business advice and consultancy relating to franchising, business franchising consultancy; management advisory services related to franchising; business advisory services relating to establishment and operation of franchises; provision of business information relating to franchising; business assistance relating to franchising; administration of the business affairs of franchises; procurement services (purchasing goods and services for franchisees); sales promotions for others; franchising consultancy and business support services; distribution of goods (not being transport services); the bringing together, for the benefit of others, a variety of goods (excluding the transport thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the goods
Class 43: Takeaway food and drink services; restaurant services for the provision of fast food; preparation of food and drink; preparation of take-away and fast food; providing food and drink; restaurant services; cafes; cafe services; self-service cafeteria services; coffee shop services; bar services; catering services; mobile catering services; snack-bars; consultancy services relating to food preparation; consultancy, advisory and information services in relation to the provision of food and drink
Schedule 3
Class 29: Prepared salads; Salads; Salads containing meat; Salads containing poultry; Potato salad; Vegetable salads; Fruit salads; Food products made from cooked vegetables; Food products made from dried vegetables; Food products made from preserved vegetables; Fresh, pre-cut, ready to serve vegetables; Prepared vegetables; Prepared meals consisting principally of fish; Prepared meals consisting principally of meat; Prepared meals consisting principally of poultry; Prepared meals consisting principally of seafood; Prepared meals consisting principally of vegetables; Prepared meals made principally of cheese; Cooked potatoes with fillings; Soups; Preparations for making soup; Eggs; Dairy-based dips; Egg-based dips; Meat-based dips; Seafood-based dips; Vegetable-based dips; Meat; Fresh game; Fresh poultry; Meat extracts; Dairy desserts (except ice cream or frozen yoghurt); Flavoured yoghurts; Soya yoghurt; Yoghurt; Yoghurts containing pulped fruits; Combinations of cheese and fruit; Cooked fruits; Food products made from cooked fruits; Food products made from preserved fruits; Preserved fruits; Frosted fruits; Fruit based snack food; Mixed fruit; Prepared foods consisting principally of fruits; Aerated beverages (predominantly of milk); Almond milk beverages; Beverages made from milk; Fruit flavoured beverages having a milk base; Drinks flavoured with chocolate and having a milk base; Flavoured milk; Beverages made from yoghurt; Drinks flavoured with spices and having a base of milk; Edible seeds
Class 30: Food pastes (spices); Spices; Salad dressings; Foodstuffs made from cereals; Preparations for making cereals; Muesli; Snacks manufactured from muesli; Bread; Filled bread products; Pastries; Confectionery; Mixes for the preparation of bread; Tortillas; Sandwiches; Sandwiches containing salad; Toasted sandwiches; Rice paper (edible); Cereal based snack food; Snack bars containing a mixture of grains, nuts and dried fruit (confectionery); Snack foods consisting principally of pasta; Snack foods consisting principally of rice; Snack foods prepared from grains; Pasta salads; Rice salads; Flavourings for soups (other than essential oils); Pasta; Pasta products; Prepared meals containing (principally) pasta; Quiches; Coffee; Iced coffee (coffee based beverages); Aerated beverages (with coffee, cocoa or chocolate base); Beverages made from coffee; Beverages made of tea; Chai tea; Beverages with tea base; Fruit flavoured tea (other than medicinal); Fruit tea (other than for medical purposes); Herbal tea (other than for medicinal use); Iced tea; Beverages made from chocolate; Beverages made from cocoa; Ice beverages with a chocolate base; Ice beverages with a cocoa base; Chocolate; Cocoa; Cocoa based products; Chocolate based products; Edible ices; Ice cream; Frozen yogurt (confectionery ices); Chocolate-based dips; Mustard-based dips; Mustard; Vinegar; Sauces (condiments); Food pastes (seasonings)
Class 35: Management of a retail enterprise for others; Presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; Retail services; Business advice relating to franchising; Business management advisory services; Business assistance relating to franchising; Administration of the business affairs of franchises; Procurement services for others (purchasing goods and services for other businesses); Sales promotion (for others); Business franchising consultancy and business support services; Distribution of goods (not being transport services) and wholesale of goods; The bringing together, for the benefit of others, a variety of goods (excluding the transport thereof), enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the goods
Class 39: Delivery of food and drink prepared for consumption; Delivery of meals and prepared foods; Food delivery services
Class 43: Takeaway food and drink services; Restaurant services for the provision of fast food; Preparation of food and drink; Preparation of take-away and fast food; Providing food and drink; Restaurant services; Cafes; Cafe services; Self-service cafeteria services; Coffee shop services; Catering services; Mobile catering services; Snack-bars; Consultancy services relating to food preparation; Consultancy, advisory and information services in relation to the provision of food and drink
0
17
0