Re: Opposition by Mayfair Finance Group Pty Ltd to an application under section 92 of the Act by Leowalt Pty Ltd for removal of trade mark number 1390246 (36) - Mayfair and Device in the name of Mayfair Finance..

This matter concerned an application by Leowalt Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the removal of trade mark number 1390246, "Mayfair and Device", from the Register under section 92 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Mayfair Finance Group Pty Ltd (the Opponent) opposed this application. The dispute centred on whether the Opponent had used the trade mark in relation to the registered services during the relevant period, or if circumstances had prevented such use.

The legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Opponent had established use of the trade mark pursuant to section 100 of the Act, and if not, whether the Registrar should exercise discretion under section 101(3) to prevent removal from the Register. The Hearing Officer also considered an argument by the Opponent that the application for removal was invalid due to a typographical error in the Applicant's name, which was subsequently amended.

The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent's evidence of use of the trade mark was insufficient. While there was evidence of a similar mark being used by Mayfair Wealth Management Pty Ltd, the Opponent failed to provide evidence establishing a sufficient connection or authorised use under its control to attribute this use to itself. The Hearing Officer also dismissed the Opponent's argument regarding the initial typographical error in the Applicant's name, finding that the Registrar had the power under section 66 of the Act to allow amendment of such clerical errors.

Ultimately, the Hearing Officer determined that the Opponent had not established its opposition to the removal application. The Hearing Officer declined to exercise discretion in favour of the Opponent, finding that the limited evidence of use and lack of established reputation did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the Register. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer ordered that the trade mark be removed from the Register and awarded costs to the Applicant.