Q1 CTS 34498 Body Corporate v Q1 Management Pty Lt

This matter concerned oppositions filed by Q1 Management Pty Ltd (the Opponent) against several trade mark applications by Mantra IP Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The dispute centred on the Applicant's proposed registration of trade marks related to the "Q1" building and associated services. The Opponent, which manages the body corporate for the residential component of the Q1 building, argued that the Applicant's trade marks should not be registered.

The court was required to determine whether the Opponent had established any of the grounds for opposition it had nominated under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). These grounds included claims that the trade marks were not capable of distinguishing the Applicant's goods or services, that their use would be contrary to law, that there had been no honest concurrent or prior continuous use, that the Applicant was not the owner, that the applications were made in bad faith, that the marks were inherently likely to deceive or cause confusion, that the applications were based on false representations, and that the Applicant did not intend to use the trade marks.

The Hearings Officer noted that the Opponent had not provided any submissions or substantive evidence to support its grounds of opposition. In the absence of such support, and referencing previous findings by Reeves J in a related matter, the Hearings Officer found that the Opponent had failed to establish any of the grounds relied upon. Specifically, the Hearings Officer concluded that the "Q1" and "SPA" marks were capable of distinguishing the Applicant's services, that the Applicant was the owner, that their use would not be contrary to law, and that there was no evidence of bad faith or intention not to use the marks.

Consequently, the Hearings Officer decided that the opposed trade mark applications could proceed to registration, subject to a stay pending any appeal. The Opponent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.