Peter Goodricke v Bob Cooper Outback Survival Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application by Bob Cooper Outback Survival Pty Ltd to remove the trade mark number 2173299, registered in the name of Peter Goodricke, from the Trade Marks Register. The application sought complete removal of the trade mark, which comprised the words "SAFE TRAVELS!" and a device, on the grounds of non-use. The trade mark was registered in relation to goods and services including hand-held apparatus for forestry, battery-powered beacons, apparatus for outdoor sporting activities, and accompanying of travellers. The decision was made by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the grounds for removal under section 92(4)(a) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. This section allows for the removal of a trade mark if, on the day the application for registration was filed, the applicant had no intention in good faith to use the trade mark in Australia, or authorise its use, or assign it for use, and if the registered owner had not used the trade mark in good faith in Australia in relation to the registered goods and services at any time before the period of one month ending on the day the removal application was filed. The onus was on the Removal Opponent, Peter Goodricke, to rebut these allegations.

The delegate considered the evidence provided by both parties, including declarations and annexures. The Removal Opponent's evidence consisted of a single declaration stating use of a trade mark since 2015 on a website and invoices. However, the delegate found that the trade marks shown in the evidence (SB1 and SB2) were not substantially identical to the registered trade mark "SAFE TRAVELS!" and device. Furthermore, the delegate was not satisfied that the Removal Opponent had demonstrated an intention to use the registered trade mark in good faith for the specified goods and services, finding the statements in the Statement of Grounds and Particulars to be casual and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the delegate concluded that the ground for removal under section 92(4)(a) had been established.

The delegate determined that the ground for removal under section 92(4)(a) had been established in relation to all the Registered Goods and Services. The delegate then considered the Registrar's discretion under section 101(3) of the Act. However, the decision text provided does not detail the outcome of this discretionary consideration or the final orders made.