Re: Opposition by The Sydney Opera House Trust to registration of trade mark application number 1902578 (35,41,42) - Composite Device - in the name of Australia China Economics, Trade & Culture Association Incorporated

The Sydney Opera House Trust (the Opponent) opposed the registration of a composite device trade mark application (number 1902578) by the Australia China Economics, Trade & Culture Association Incorporated (the Applicant). The opposition was based on grounds including that the trade mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion, and that it would be disentitled to registration due to the use of the Opponent's well-known mark. The matter was heard by a Hearings and Oppositions Officer.

The legal issues before the Hearings and Oppositions Officer were whether the Applicant's trade mark, which included stylised elements that could be perceived as a representation of the Sydney Opera House, was likely to deceive or cause confusion among the Australian public, and whether the Opponent had established grounds for opposition under the relevant provisions of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), specifically sections 42(b), 43, 44, 60, and 62A.

The Hearings and Oppositions Officer reasoned that while the Applicant's trade mark contained elements that could be interpreted as a stylised image of the Sydney Opera House, particularly to the Australian public, this alone did not establish a likelihood of deception or confusion. The Officer noted that the trade mark also included the initials "ACETCA" and Chinese characters, which, to those unable to read Chinese, would likely be perceived as Chinese-styled ornamentation. The Officer found that the Applicant's stated intention to convey a visual relationship with the Sydney Opera House and reflect its aims as an Australia-China association was not sufficient to establish the grounds for opposition. The evidence did not demonstrate that the use of the Applicant's trade mark would lead to confusion with the Opponent's activities or branding, nor that it would be likely to deceive the public as to the origin or sponsorship of goods or services.

Consequently, the Hearings and Oppositions Officer found that none of the grounds for opposition were established and ordered that the opposition be unsuccessful, allowing the trade mark to proceed to registration.