Opposition by Verge Design Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1896764 (class 9,14,18, 25, 35) - VERGE GIRL- in the name of Romani Clothing Pty Ltd ATF the Dionyssiou Family Trust

This matter concerned an opposition by Verge Design Ltd to the registration of the trade mark application number 1896764, VERGE GIRL, filed by Romani Clothing Pty Ltd ATF the Dionyssiou Family Trust. The application sought registration across classes 9, 14, 18, 25, and 35. The decision was made by Hearing Officer M. Cooper.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. This section concerns the registration of a trade mark that is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier trade mark, and whether the applicant for registration is the owner of the earlier trade mark. The opponent, Verge Design Ltd, contended that its own trade marks, VERGE, were earlier trade marks and that the applied-for mark VERGE GIRL was deceptively similar, leading to a likelihood of customer confusion and the applicant trading on the opponent's goodwill.

The Hearing Officer found that the opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition under section 60. Evidence presented by the opponent demonstrated extensive use and marketing of its VERGE trade marks in Australia since 1998 across a range of clothing and accessories. This included evidence of sales, advertising, and distribution through a network of retail stores. The opponent also presented evidence of actual confusion from retailers who encountered the VERGE GIRL application during online searches for VERGE, leading them to believe it was a new line from the opponent. The Hearing Officer concluded that the applied-for mark VERGE GIRL was deceptively similar to the opponent's earlier VERGE marks, and that registration would likely lead to confusion among consumers.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer refused to register trade mark application number 1896764. The Hearing Officer also ordered that the applicant pay the opponent's costs, following the general rule that costs follow the event.