Rosbert International Pty Ltd as the Trustee for Rosbert International Unit Trust.

The proceeding involved Rosbert International Pty Ltd as the Trustee for Rosbert International Unit Trust (the applicant) and an unnamed opponent in a trademark opposition matter before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the applicant's contention that it was reasonable to assume the opponent had not filed evidence in support of its opposition, leading to the applicant's belief that the due date for its own evidence in answer had been miscalculated.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's solicitors acted reasonably in assuming that the opponent had not filed evidence in support of its opposition, and consequently, whether the applicant's subsequent actions and assumptions regarding the timeline for filing evidence in answer were justified. This involved assessing the applicant's reliance on information obtained from the IP Australia website and direct communication with IP Australia staff, in contrast to the formal notification procedures mandated by the regulations.

The court reasoned that the timeframe for filing evidence in answer is dictated by formal notification from the Registrar, not by the status displayed on the IP Australia website or by informal inquiries. While the applicant's solicitors may have reasonably relied on the information available to them at the time, including the website and telephone advice, the regulations clearly stipulate that the three-month period commences upon notification from the Registrar. The court noted that official correspondence had been sent to the applicant's address for service and had not been returned, indicating that the applicant had been formally notified of the relevant procedural steps. The fact that the opponent's evidence had been filed but not yet uploaded to the website did not alter the formal notification timeline.