Re: Opposition by Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot to extension of protection under regulation 17a.33 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 of trade mark number 2218465 (International Registration number 1618202) (classes 3

This matter concerned an opposition by Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot to the extension of protection of trade mark number 2218465 (International Registration number 1618202) in Class 3, which was heard by Tracey Berger J in the Federal Court of Australia. The opposition arose following the applicant's request to extend the protection of the trade mark, which had been registered in Australia for ten years.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had genuinely used the trade mark in Australia during the relevant period preceding the opposition. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the evidence filed by the applicant in response to the opposition sufficiently demonstrated such use, or if the opposition should succeed on the grounds of non-use.

The Court considered the evidence of use provided by the applicant, which included invoices and a statutory declaration. It was found that the evidence did not establish genuine use of the trade mark in relation to the goods for which it was registered. The invoices were for goods that did not clearly fall within Class 3, and the statutory declaration lacked the necessary detail and specificity to demonstrate actual commercial use of the trade mark in Australia. The Court applied the principles of trade mark law concerning the requirement for genuine use, noting that mere registration does not equate to use and that the onus is on the applicant to prove such use when challenged.

Consequently, the Court upheld the opposition and ordered that the extension of protection for trade mark number 2218465 be refused.