Opposition by Uber Technologies, Inc to registration of trade mark application number 1807760 (class 44) - UBERDOC - in the name of UBERDOC PTY LTD

Uber Technologies, Inc. (the Opponent) opposed the registration of trade mark application number 1807760, UBERDOC, in the name of UBERDOC PTY LTD (the Applicant), for services in Class 44. The Opponent contended that the application should be refused on several grounds, including sections 42(b), 60, and 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer, Timothy Brown, considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.

The primary legal issues before the hearing officer were whether the Opponent had established any of the nominated grounds of opposition. Specifically, the hearing officer examined whether the UBER trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia prior to the priority date of the UBERDOC application, such that the use of UBERDOC would be likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 60 of the Act. The hearing officer also considered the grounds under sections 42(b) and 62A, although the detailed reasoning for these grounds is not elaborated in the provided text.

The hearing officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition it nominated. While the Opponent presented extensive evidence of the significant use and promotion of its UBER trade mark and related marks in Australia, including substantial advertising expenditure and consumer engagement across various services, this evidence was not sufficient to establish the grounds relied upon. The hearing officer noted that the Opponent bore the onus of establishing its grounds on the balance of probabilities, and that the relevant date for determination was the priority date of the Applicant's trade mark application, 8 November 2016.

Consequently, the hearing officer decided that trade mark application number 1807760 should proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless a notice of appeal was served. The Opponent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the opposition proceedings.