Parkhurst Pines Pty Ltd, Ashwood Way Pty Ltd and Walter Dell Pty Ltd v Truefeat Pty Limited

This decision concerns objections by Parkhurst Pines Pty Ltd, Ashwood Way Pty Ltd, and Walter Dell Pty Ltd (collectively, the applicants) to applications by Truefeat Pty Limited (the opponent) for extensions of time to serve evidence in support of its opposition to the registration of five trade mark applications. The matter was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the opponent had provided sufficient grounds to justify extensions of time for serving its evidence in support of its opposition. Specifically, the delegate had to determine if the opponent had furnished a good reason for its inability to serve the evidence within the prescribed time and whether it had discharged the burden of establishing a proper case to justify the requested extensions. The delegate also considered the principles of public interest and relative inconvenience to the parties.

The delegate reasoned that, in accordance with established case law, including *Vangedal-Nielsen* and *Lyons*, a party seeking an extension of time must provide a good reason for the delay and demonstrate a proper case for the extension. The opponent's initial request for a two-month extension merely stated that time was needed to prepare evidence, without explaining why the prescribed period was insufficient or indicating that evidence preparation had commenced. A subsequent request for a further two-month extension cited ongoing Federal Court proceedings involving the opponent as the reason, but the delegate found this insufficient, particularly as it implied no evidence preparation had yet begun. The delegate concluded that the opponent had failed to meet its onus of establishing adequate grounds for the extensions.

Consequently, the delegate refused the opponent's application for an extension of time to serve evidence in support of its opposition for all five trade mark applications. The delegate also awarded costs to the applicants. The subsequent application for a further extension of time was also refused as a consequence of the refusal of the initial application.