Re: Trade mark application number 1920532 (classes 18 and 25) Wood Paper Company in the name of Amazon Technologies, Inc

This matter concerned an application by Amazon Technologies, Inc. for the registration of the trade mark WOOD PAPER COMPANY in classes 18 (bags) and 25 (clothing). The application was opposed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the grounds that the mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods and was therefore prohibited under section 41(4) of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer, Louise Tuohy, was required to determine whether the trade mark was registrable.

The central legal issue was whether the phrase WOOD PAPER COMPANY was inherently adapted to distinguish Amazon Technologies, Inc.'s goods (bags and clothing) from those of other traders. The Registrar argued that the ordinary signification of the phrase in Australia, particularly in relation to textiles derived from wood pulp, would lead consumers to understand it as descriptive of the nature or quality of the goods, rather than as an indicator of origin. The applicant contended that the mark was inherently adapted to distinguish and that the presumption of registrability under section 33 of the Act should apply.

The hearing officer found that while the trade mark was to some extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated goods, the ordinary signification of WOOD PAPER COMPANY in Australia, to purchasers of clothing and bags, would be a company providing wood and paper-based products. This was supported by the fact that many textiles used in clothing and bags are made from wood-based cellulose fibres. Consequently, the hearing officer concluded that the phrase was one that other traders would likely think of and desire to use in connection with such goods, meaning section 41(4) of the Act applied. The applicant had not provided any evidence of use to overcome this ground for rejection. The hearing officer also disregarded evidence of other registrations on the register and noted that overseas acceptance did not significantly influence the assessment for the Australian market.

Accordingly, the hearing officer was satisfied that there was a ground under the Act for rejecting the application and therefore rejected Trade Mark application number 1920532.