Redline Performance Pty Ltd v Power Packaging Pty Ltd

[2023] ATMO 85

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS

Re:Opposition by Redline Performance Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1963057 (class 16) - REDLINE - in the name of Power Packaging Pty Ltd

Delegate:

Tracey Berger

Representation:

Opponent: Anthony Franklin, Senior Counsel instructed by W3IP Law Pty Ltd

Applicant: Tara Adams

Decision:

2023 ATMO 85

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – ss 44, 58 and 60 considered – s 58 established for some goods – opportunity to amend – trade mark to proceed to registration for amended goods

Background

1. This decision concerns an opposition brought by Redline Performance Pty Ltd (‘Opponent’) pursuant to s 52 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)[1] to registration of the following trade mark:

Trade Mark:  REDLINE              (‘Trade Mark’)  

Application number:  1963057               (‘Application’)

Owner:  Power Packaging Pty Ltd (‘Applicant’)

Filing date:  18 October 2018

Specification:  Class 16: Adhesive tapes for use in packaging; Adhesive tapes for use in wrapping; Adhesive packaging tapes; Adhesive tape for packaging purposes; Adhesively coated plastic films for packaging purposes; Blown films (for packaging); Blown films made from alpha-olefin copolymers for packaging; Films made of plastics for use as packaging material; Films of plastics for packaging purposes; Films of plastics materials for packaging; Films of plastics materials for packaging purposes; Flexible plastic films for packaging; Packaging materials made from plastic film; Packaging materials made from plastic film laminates; Plastic film for packaging; Plastic materials in the form of films for packaging; Plastics film for packaging; Plastics for packaging (wrapping); Protective films of plastic for wrapping and packaging; Self-adhesive films for packaging; Strips of film (plastic) for packaging; Self-adhesive films for wrapping; Synthetic stretch packaging films of plastic; Air bubble plastics for packaging; Clear coated plastics film for packaging; Clear films for packaging; Cling film plastics for packaging; Co-extruded films for packaging; Coated plastics films for packaging; Plastic in film form for packaging  (‘Applicant’s Goods’)

[1] Unless otherwise stated, each reference to a regulation below is a reference to a regulation in the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) and each reference to a section is a reference to a section of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

2.     The acceptance of the Trade Mark for possible registration was advertised on 2 May 2019. The Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose and a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) on 29 May 2019. The Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 1 November 2019.

3.     The Opponent then filed Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) consisting of a declaration of Mark Hardiman, director of the Opponent, made on 3 February 2020 with Exhibits MH-1 to MH-16 (‘Hardiman Declaration’).  The Applicant did not file any Evidence in Answer before the deadline of 5 August 2020.

4.     On 7 June 2022, this office granted the Opponent’s application to amend the SGP to include
s 58 as a ground of opposition and the Applicant was given one month to file Evidence in Answer to this ground.  The Applicant filed a declaration of Steven Alan Mason-Robinson, director and owner of the Applicant, made on 7 July 2022 with Exhibit SR-1.

5.     The parties were then given an opportunity to be heard.  An oral hearing was not requested and the Opponent filed written submissions on 31 January 2023 (‘Opponent’s Submissions’) followed by the Applicant’s written submissions filed on 16 February 2023.  This matter has been allocated to me as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks for a decision on the written record.    

Grounds of opposition, onus and standard of proof

6.     The SGP (as amended) nominated grounds of opposition under ss 43, 44, 58 and 60.  The Opponent did not refer to the s 43 ground in the Opponent’s Submissions and I treat that ground as abandoned.

7.     To be successful, the Opponent bears the onus of establishing at least one of the grounds.[2] The relevant standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard based on the balance of probabilities.[3] The date at which the rights of the parties are to be determined is 18 October 2018 (‘Relevant Date’), being both the filing and priority date of the Trade Mark.

Evidence

[2] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).

[3] Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot

and Edelman JJ).

The Opponent

8.     The Opponent is primarily engaged in the manufacture and distribution of automotive parts including inlet manifolds, air filters, gaskets, hardware, chrome dressup, filter oil, lead separators, carburettor adaptors and associated linkage components.

9.     The Opponent’s predecessor in title registered the business name REDLINE AUTO PRODUCTS on 20 September 1979 and in December 1979 commenced sales of automotive parts under the mark REDLINE.  The Opponent or its predecessor in title has continuously used the REDLINE mark since that time for auto supplies which it manufactures in Australia or imports from overseas.  Hereinafter, any reference to the Opponent includes a reference to the Opponent’s predecessor in title.

10.   The Hardiman Declaration states that since 1979, the Opponent has continuously sold packaging materials being boxes, plastic bags and clamshell packaging (‘Opponent’s Packaging’) under the mark REDLINE.  The Opponent’s Packaging is sold separately to its registered dealers, retail and wholesale customers[4] for repackaging any damaged products, packaging the Opponent’s goods bought in bulk for individual sale and packaging any customised goods that the customer assembles itself from the Opponent’s parts.[5]

[4] Hardiman Declaration, [20].

[5] Ibid, [21].

11.   The Opponent has operated a website at (‘Opponent’s Website’) since about 1998 to promote its auto supplies.  The Opponent’s dealers and wholesale customers can login through the Opponent’s Website to order car parts, auto supplies and the Opponent’s Packaging.  A number of invoices for sales of the Opponent’s Packaging are provided[6] as well as historical extracts from the Opponent’s Website.[7]

[6] Ibid, Exhibit MH-7.

[7] Ibid, Exhibits MH-4 and MH-11.

12.   In addition to the Opponent’s Website, the Opponent promotes its goods under the mark REDLINE in promotional materials, catalogues, magazines and social media.  Various examples dating from 1968 to 2019 are provided.[8]  The Opponent has also exhibited Google Analytics data for traffic to the Opponent’s Website.[9]

[8] Ibid, Exhibits MH-9, MH-12 and MH-14.

[9] Ibid, Exhibit MH-12.

13.   The Opponent has supplier agreements with a number of leading retailers including Auto One, Autobarn, Repco and Supercheap Auto.  The Opponent sells over 2000 items at over 2200 stores throughout Australia.  Confidential sales turnover and marketing expenditure for 2014-2019 has been provided.  The sales figures are commercially appreciable but advertising expenses are not significant.

14.    The Opponent is the owner of various Australian trade mark registrations containing or consisting of REDLINE, which have an earlier priority date than the Application, details of which are set out in Annexure A (‘Opponent’s Marks’).

The Applicant

15.   Since the Applicant was established in 1989, it has been selling industrial packaging supplies, some of which are third party products and some which are its own branded goods.

16.   In 2016, the Applicant began selling machinery for pallet wrapping, stretch film, pallet strapping and packaging tape under the Trade Mark. The Applicant has provided illustrations from its website at but these extracts are undated.

Discussion

Section 58

17.   Section 58 provides that a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the applicant is not the owner of the trade mark.

18.   The owner of a trade mark is the person who first uses it in Australia, or first files a trade mark application in Australia, whichever is the earlier.

19.   To succeed on this ground of opposition, the Opponent must establish:

a.    that the Trade Mark is identical, or substantially identical, to the trade mark(s) relied upon by the Opponent;[10]

b.    that the Applicant’s Goods are the ‘same kind of thing’ as the goods for which the trade mark(s) relied upon by the Opponent was used;[11] and

c.    that a person other than the Applicant has an earlier claim to ownership of the Trade Mark based on use of the trade mark relied upon by the Opponent prior to the Application or any actual use of the Trade Mark by the Applicant, whichever is earlier.[12]

[10] Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v Sitmar Cruises Limited [1994] FCA 936; (1994) 31 IPR 375 (Gummow J).

[11] Re Hicks’ Trade Mark [1897] VicLawRp 118; (1897) 22 VLR 636, 640 (Holroyd J).

[12] Settef SpA v Riv-Oland Marble Co (Vic) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 IPR 402, 413 (McGarvie J).

20.   The Opponent particularised this ground of opposition in its SGP as follows:

The Applicant's Trade mark is substantially identical with the REDLINE trade mark owned by the Opponent, which the Opponent has used continuously since 1968. An overall impression of similarity exists between the marks given the identity of the term REDLINE present in both marks. Accordingly, the Applicant cannot claim to be the owner of the REDLINE trade mark and should be refused registration under section 58.

21.   The Applicant has not substantiated its claim to have used the Trade Mark since 2016 and accordingly, the Opponent must establish that it has used the Trade Mark (or a substantially identical mark) since before the Relevant Date for the same kind of thing as the Applicant’s Goods.

22.   It is apparent from the EIS, that the Opponent uses the mark REDLINE in a number of different forms including predominantly as:

i.REDLINE; or

ii.(‘REDLINE Logo’).

23.   The test for whether two marks are substantially identical requires that they be compared:

side by side, their similarities and differences noted and the importance of these assessed having regard to the essential features of the registered mark and the total impression of resemblance or dissimilarity that emerges from the comparison.[13]

[13] The Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407, 414 (Windeyer J).

24.   The mark REDLINE is clearly identical to the Trade Mark.

25.   It is readily apparent on a side by side comparison of the mark REDLINE and REDLINE Logo that there are obvious differences.  The REDLINE Logo contains a device element and the word PERFORMANCE.  Although the word PERFORMANCE is not distinctive, its presence cannot be ignored.  I am not satisfied that the REDLINE Logo and the Trade Mark are substantially identical.  Hence, the Opponent cannot rely on use of the REDLINE Logo to support the s 58 ground of opposition.

26.   I turn now to a consideration of whether the Opponent has used REDLINE as a trade mark for the ‘same kind of thing’ as the Applicant’s Goods.

27.   Pursuant to s 7(4), ‘use of a trade mark in relation to goods’ means use of the trade mark upon, or in physical or other relation to, the goods (including second-hand goods).  Moreover, s 9(1)(c) provides that:

(c)  a trade mark is taken also to be applied in relation to goods or services if it is used:

(i)  on a signboard or in an advertisement (including a televised advertisement); or

(ii)  in an invoice, wine list, catalogue, business letter, business paper, price list or other commercial document;

and goods are delivered, or services provided (as the case may be) to a person following a request or order made by referring to the trade mark as so used.

As such, use of a trade mark in advertisements, invoices or other documents relating to goods can be trade mark use for the purposes of s 7(4).[14] 

[14] Thunderbird Products Corp v Thunderbird Marine Products Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 592 (Jacobs J); Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Registrar of Trade Marks (1977) 137 CLR 670 (Aickin J).

28.   In support of Mr Hardiman’s claim that the Opponent has used REDLINE for the Opponent’s Packaging, the Hardiman Declaration annexes screenshots of the Opponent’s Website showing that dealers and wholesale customers who login to the site can access the category ‘Packaging’ and order “Air Filter Boxes”, “Gauge Clamshells & Boxes”; “Heatwrap Clamshell”; “Manifold Boxes”; “Redline Plastic Bags”; and “Rocker Cover Boxes.”  Photos of these goods are also included.  However, none of these snapshots or photos are dated and most show use of the REDLINE Logo and hence are not proof of use of REDLINE by the Opponent for packaging products before the Relevant Date. 

29.   However, the Hardiman Declaration also annexes invoices for the sale of the Opponent’s Packaging to customers dated between 15 March 2016 and 31 July 2019.[15]  I have only considered the invoices predating the Relevant Date (‘Invoices’).  Some of the Invoices are for sales of ‘Redline plastic bag’ in different sizes.  This use is consistent with how the Opponent’s plastic bags are offered for sale through the customer login of the Opponent’s Website.  The sale of empty plastic bags under the mark REDLINE for the purposes of repackaging goods sold in bulk or products assembled from the Opponent’s parts constitutes use of the Trade Mark for plastic bags.  In my opinion, this evidence establishes that the Opponent has used the mark REDLINE as a trade mark before the Relevant Date in Australia for plastic bags.

[15] Hardiman Declaration, Exhibit MH-7.

30.   The Invoices also list ‘COLOUR AIR FILTER BOX’ and ‘Rocker Cover Box’.  The mark REDLINE is not used in relation to these products.  Whilst the Redline Logo features on the Invoices, as previously noted use of the Redline Logo does not constitute use of the Trade Mark.

31.   Having found that the Opponent has used the Trade Mark for plastic bags before the Relevant Date, I must now determine whether plastic bags are the ‘same kind of thing’ as the Applicant’s Goods. 

32.   The test for whether goods are the ‘same kind of thing’ is narrower than the test for whether goods are of the same description.  It follows that goods which are evidently of the same description, such as backpacks and handbags, will not necessarily be considered to be the ‘same kind of thing’.  Establishing if goods are the ‘same kind of thing’ can be resolved by ‘asking whether the relevant goods or services are essentially the same…though they pass under a different name owing to slight variations in shape and size’.[16]

[16] Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd (2007) FCR 506, [89] (Allsop J).

33.   Broadly speaking, the Applicant’s Goods can be characterised into two categories:

i.Adhesive tapes; and

ii.Plastic films and wrapping.

34.   Adhesive tapes are used for sealing boxes, parcels and other packages.  On the other hand, plastic bags are used for storing, containing, protecting and transporting goods.  These two sets of goods have a different nature and purpose.  In my view, adhesive tapes are not the ‘same kind of thing’ as plastic bags.

35.   Plastic films and wrapping are similar, if not the same, in nature and purpose to plastic bags in that they are used for storing, containing, protecting and transporting goods.  Moreover, plastic bags are commonly made from plastic film.  The Application contains items such as “packaging made from plastic film” and “packaging materials made from plastic films”.  I consider these items to be the same as plastic bags and plastic films to be the same kind of thing as plastic bags. 

36.   The Opponent has established a s 58 ground of opposition in relation to the Applicant’s plastic films.  Accordingly, I will now consider whether the Opponent has established another ground of opposition in relation to the Applicant’s ‘adhesive tapes’.

Section 44

37.   Section 44 relevantly provides:

44  Identical etc. trade marks

(1)  Subject to subsections (3) and (4), an application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of goods (applicant’s goods) must be rejected if:

(a)  the applicant’s trade mark is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:

(i)  a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar goods or closely related services; or

(ii)  a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar goods or closely related services is being sought by another person; and

(b)  the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s goods is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar goods or closely related services.

Note 1:       For deceptively similar see section 10.

Note 2:       For similar goods see subsection 14(1).

Note 3:       For priority date see section 12.

38.   In the SGP, the Opponent relied on the Opponent’s Marks in support of this ground of opposition but in the Opponent’s Submissions, this ground was only pressed based on registration 1380596 for the word REDLINE in classes 12, 35 and 37 (‘96 Mark’.).

39.   The 96 Mark is identical to the trade mark and has an earlier priority date.  Accordingly, the relevant question is whether the 96 Mark covers similar goods or closely related services to the Applicant’s adhesive tapes.

40.   The question of whether the 96 Mark covers similar goods or closely related services to the adhesive tapes is a question of fact.[17]

[17] Polo Textile Industries Pty Ltd v Domestic Textile Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 227, [19] (Burchett J).

41.   The factors to be considered in deciding whether goods are similar include the nature and characteristics of the goods, their origin, their purpose, whether they are usually produced by the same manufacturers, whether they are sold in the same shops and to the same class of consumers.[18]  The test for whether goods and services are closely related is not explicitly defined but Justice French noted in Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths that the question requires a ‘practical judgement to be made’[19] and further commented:

The term “closely related” recognises that goods and services are different things. There will be classes of goods which are similar to each other. There will also be classes of services which are similar to each other. But the word “similar” does not apply as between goods and services. So there must be some other form of relationship between the services covered by one mark and the goods covered by another to enable the goods or services in question to be described as “closely related”.[20]

[18] John Crowther & Sons (Milnsbridge) Ltd’s Application (1948) 65 RPC 369, 372.

[19] [1999] FCA 1020, [40].

[20] Ibid, [37].

42.   The Opponent argues that the relevant services of the 96 Mark are ‘wholesaling and retailing services in this class relating to the sale of parts and accessories for motor vehicles’. The Opponent contends that these services are closely related to the Applicant’s Goods because their nature is the same in that both are provided by merchants, both result in the provision of goods for sale, the channels of supply are identical and the purpose of both the Opponent’s services and Applicant’s Goods are the same, namely to provide a market for the goods.  I do not find these arguments persuasive.  As the Applicant points out, all goods provided under a trade mark (ie. in the course of trade) are sold and any goods which are sold are provided by a merchant.  If the Opponent’s reasoning is adopted then wholesaling and retailing services would be closely related to all goods, which is not the case.

43.   Whilst the Opponent sells both packaging and auto supplies, I consider this to be unusual and am of the view, that most traders in auto supplies do not also sell adhesive tapes.  There is nothing in evidence to show that this is a common practice.   The nature and purpose of the Opponent’s services being the sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories is different to adhesive tapes which are used to seal or bind a package, opening or join goods together. 

44.   I find that adhesive tapes are not closely related to the class services of the 96 Mark.  Although the Opponent did not argue in its submissions that the goods of the 96 Mark are similar to adhesive tapes or that the class 37 services of that registration are closely related, nor contend that any of the Opponent’s Marks cover similar goods, I note that I do not regard adhesive tapes to be similar or closely related to any of the goods or services of the Opponent’s Marks.

45.   The s 44 ground of opposition is unsuccessful.

Section 60

46.   Section 60 provides:

60  Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia

The registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services may be opposed on the ground that:

(a)  another trade mark had, before the priority date for the registration of the first‑mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services, acquired a reputation in Australia; and

(b)  because of the reputation of that other trade mark, the use of the first‑mentioned trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

47.   The Opponent particularised this ground of opposition in its SGP as follows:

Redline Performance is a third generation company with a reputation nationally and internationally for providing quality automotive product.  Redline Performance has contracts to supply automotive products to the major automotive retailer chains within Australia which include Autobarn, Supercheap, Repco, Napa, Autoone.  Redline Performance also has a licensing agreement with General Motors.  Evidence of the first use of Redline was in 1968 when it was printed in a pamphlet that was distributed at the Sydney Motor show.  see Annexure F.

48.   To succeed on this ground, I must first decide whether the Opponent had a reputation in the mark REDLINE (or a similar mark) in Australia at the Relevant Date and if so, whether as a result of that reputation, use of the Trade Mark is likely to deceive of cause confusion.

49.   For the purposes of s 60, reputation must be established as a matter of fact by the Opponent[21] and must be amongst a ‘significant’ or ‘substantial’ number of Australian consumers[22] although this is tempered by the nature of the relevant market.  In the present case, the size of the relevant market for adhesive tapes is very large being a significant proportion of Australian population. 

[21] ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159, [77] (Lockhart J).

[22] See Renaud Cointreau & Cie v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2001] FCA 1170, [75] (Moore, Tamberlin and Goldberg JJ).

50.   The reputation of a trade mark may be demonstrated in a variety of ways.  For example, it may be established by demonstrating a significant number of people are exposed to a trade mark,[23] or inferred from a high volume of sales,[24] advertising expenditure or other promotion.[25]

[23] Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2000] FCA 1587, [91] (Heerey J).

[24] McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335, [86] (Kenny J).

[25] Ibid.

51.   The EIS demonstrates that the Opponent has used various marks containing or consisting of REDLINE since 1968 for automotive parts and generates significant annual turnover.  The Opponent’s auto parts have been advertised on  the Opponent’s Website and in various magazines over the years and more recently have been promoted on Facebook.  The Opponent’s products are readily available throughout Australia through leading retailers.  I am satisfied that due to the longstanding use of marks containing or consisting of REDLINE, that the Opponent has acquired a reputation in such marks for automotive products.  However, there is an absence of detail about sales of the Opponent’s Packaging.  In particular, there is no evidence that the Opponent promotes the Opponent’s Packaging nor have any details of the percentage of sales or turnover for the Opponent’s Packaging been provided.  The Opponent has provided evidence of traffic to the Opponent’s Website but the Opponent’s Packaging can only be viewed on that site by customers who login and there is no evidence about what percentage of customers purchase the Opponent’s products through this feature or purchase the Opponent’s Packaging.  The sales of the Opponent’s Packaging detailed in the Invoices show only small numbers are purchased.  Accordingly, on my assessment of the EIS, I am not satisfied that the Opponent has a reputation in the mark REDLINE for packaging.

52.   The Opponent predominantly trades in automotive parts which, in general is a distinct industry to packaging.  In most cases, auto supplies and packaging are sold through different trade channels and have a different nature and purpose.

53.   For the reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied that use of the Trade Mark by the Applicant for adhesive tapes is likely to cause confusion or deception to a significant number of persons.

54.   Therefore, the s 60 ground of opposition is unsuccessful.

Decision

55.   Section 55 provides:

55  Decision

(1)  Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:

(a)  to refuse to register the trade mark; or

(b)  to register the trade mark (with or without conditions or limitations) in respect of the goods and/or services then specified in the application;

having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the application was opposed has been established.

56.   The Opponent has established a ground of opposition under s 58 in respect of some of the Applicant’s Goods.  None of the other grounds of opposition have been established.

57.   On 22 June 2023, I offered the Applicant the opportunity to amend the specification of the Application to:

Adhesive tapes for use in packaging; Adhesive tapes for use in wrapping; Adhesive packaging tapes; Adhesive tape for packaging purposes; Adhesively coated plastic films for packaging purposes; Blown films (for packaging); Blown films made from alpha-olefin copolymers for packaging; Films made of plastics for use as packaging material; Films of plastics for packaging purposes; Films of plastics materials for packaging; Films of plastics materials for packaging purposes; Flexible plastic films for packaging; Packaging materials made from plastic film; Packaging materials made from plastic film laminates; Plastic film for packaging; Plastic materials in the form of films for packaging; Plastics film for packaging; Plastics for packaging (wrapping); Protective films of plastic for wrapping and packaging; Self-adhesive films for packaging; Strips of film (plastic) for packaging; Self-adhesive films for wrapping; Synthetic stretch packaging films of plastic; Air bubble plastics for packaging; Clear coated plastics film for packaging; Clear films for packaging; Cling film plastics for packaging; Co-extruded films for packaging; Coated plastics films for packaging; Plastic in film form for packaging

58.   On 27 June 2023, the Applicant requested amendment of the goods of the Application to “Adhesive tapes for use in packaging; Adhesive tapes for use in wrapping; Adhesive packaging tapes; Adhesive tape for packaging purposes” and that amendment has been made.

59.   The Trade Mark may now proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision.  If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal before that time, I direct that registration shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued.  The disposition of the Application shall otherwise be in accordance with the Court’s order or direction.   

Costs

60.   The Applicant sought an award of costs.  As both parties have had a measure of success, I decline to award costs.

Tracey Berger

Hearing Officer

Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks

29 June 2023

ANNEXURE A

Number	Trade Mark	Priority Date	Specification
400832	6 Dec 1983	Class 12:  Non-electrical and non-electronic motor vehicle accessories and parts consisting of or comprising mainly metal; but excluding bicycles, bicycle frames and other bicycle parts.
553181	REDLINE	4 Apr 1991	Class 7:  Automotive ignition components including distributor caps, ignition coil resistors, ignition coils, ignition points, dual point conversion kits, distributor rotors, condensors, ignition advance curve kits, and ignition coil covers and ignition system control devices, all being goods included in class 7
586062	REDLINE	8 Sep 1992	Class 37:  Automotive repair services
619243	(Endorsement: Registration gives no right to exclusive use of the word PERFORMANCE)	23 Dec 1993	Class 7:  Automotive ignition components including distributors, ignition coil resistors; ignition coils, ignition points, dual point conversion kits, distributor rotors, condensors, ignition coil covers, ignition system control devices, ignition leads; induction and exhaust system manifolds; industrial vacuums and polishing machines
1380596	REDLINE	30 Aug 2010	Class 12:  Motor vehicles; cars, buses, trucks and motorcycles; parts and accessories for all the aforementioned goods. Class 35:  Advertising, promotion and public relations relating to motor vehicles, sports involving motor vehicles and the motor vehicle industry; wholesaling and retailing services in this class relating to parts and accessories for motor vehicles; advertising, promotion and public relations relating to entertainment, cultural and sporting events Class 37:  Maintenance, servicing and repair of parts and accessories for motor vehicles
1660435	Redline (Endorsement: Provisions of ss 44(4) and/or Reg 4.15A applied)	2 Dec 2014	Class 9:  Automotive electric batteries; Chargers for electric batteries; Electric batteries; Electric batteries for land vehicles; Electric batteries for powering electric vehicles; Electric batteries for use in air vehicles; Electric batteries for water vehicles; Electric battery chargers; Automotive electrical components; Distributors being automotive electrical components; Light emitting diode (LED) displays; Light emitting diodes (LED); Check measuring instruments; Dial gauge instruments; Digital measuring instruments; Distance measuring instruments; Electric control instruments for engines; Electric measuring instruments; Electronic gauging instruments; Instruments for use on boats in indicating speed; Nautical apparatus and instruments; Tyre monitoring instruments; Vacuum measuring instruments; Batteries; Batteries for electric vehicles; Batteries for land vehicles; Batteries, electric, for vehicles; Car batteries; Cases adapted for batteries; Containers for batteries; Dry batteries; Dry-cell batteries; Electric apparatus for charging batteries; Electric storage batteries for land vehicle engines; Electric storage batteries for use with engines; Electric storage batteries for use with motors; Electrical batteries for cars; Starter batteries for vehicles; Switches for detaching batteries; Vehicle batteries; all of the foregoing being parts and accessories for automotive and marine use