Re: Opposition by Paramount International Export, Ltd to registration of trade mark application 1894113 Fiji FRESH in the name of Campbell Woskett as Trustee for the Agvesta Trust

Paramount International Export, Ltd (the Opponent) opposed the registration of the trade mark application 1894113 Fiji FRESH, filed by Campbell Woskett as Trustee for the Agvesta Trust (the Applicant). The dispute concerned the Applicant's proposed registration for a range of beverages, which the Opponent argued was deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks and would likely cause confusion among consumers. The matter was heard by Debrett Lyons, a Hearings Officer for the Trade Marks Hearings.

The legal issues before the Hearings Officer were whether the grounds of opposition pressed by the Opponent under sections 42(b), 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. Specifically, the Opponent contended that the proposed trade mark was deceptively similar to its existing registrations and covered similar goods, that its prior use of the "FIJI" mark had established a reputation such that the proposed mark would likely deceive or cause confusion, and that its use would be contrary to law, including provisions of the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth).

The Hearings Officer found that the Opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. While acknowledging the Opponent's extensive use and registration of the "FIJI" mark for bottled water, the Hearings Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant's amended specification of goods, which excluded mineral and aerated waters, would lead to deception or confusion in contravention of sections 44 or 60. Furthermore, the Hearings Officer was not satisfied that the use of the proposed trade mark would be contrary to law, thus failing the section 42(b) ground. The Applicant's informal submission that a monopoly over a country name could not be exercised was noted, but the decision ultimately rested on the failure to establish the statutory grounds.

Consequently, the Hearings Officer decided that the opposition was unsuccessful and the trade mark application could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent.