Opposition by T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd to application under section 92 of the

Janne Clara Lindrum applied under sections 92(4)(a) and 92(4)(b) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) to remove the trade mark LINDRUM (number 750507) from the Register of Trade Marks. The trade mark was registered in the name of T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd and covered services in Class 42, specifically procuring lodgings and hotel and accommodation services. T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd opposed the removal application. The matter was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The delegate was required to determine whether the trade mark had been used in Australia in relation to the registered services during the three-year period ending one month before the filing of the removal application. Specifically, the delegate had to consider whether T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd, or its predecessors in title, had used the trade mark, or a trade mark with additions or alterations not substantially affecting its identity, in good faith in Australia within this relevant period. The onus was on T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd to rebut the allegation of non-use.

The delegate considered evidence of the operation of the "Hotel Lindrum Business" by previous owners and management companies, including the use of the trade mark HOTEL LINDRUM and a logo trade mark. While evidence of use of the registered trade mark LINDRUM itself was not presented, the delegate found that the use of HOTEL LINDRUM and the logo trade mark constituted use of the registered trade mark with additions or alterations that did not substantially affect its identity. This conclusion was based on a side-by-side comparison of the marks, finding that the word "LINDRUM" was the essential feature of all marks and that the addition of "HOTEL" or stylisation did not alter the overall impression of similarity. The delegate was satisfied that there had been use of HOTEL LINDRUM and the logo trade mark in relation to hotel accommodation services during the relevant period.

Consequently, the delegate determined that the ground for removal under section 92(4)(b) was not established. The delegate exercised discretion not to remove the trade mark from the Register and dismissed the removal application.