Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Fernfortune International Wines Co. limited

[2020] ATMO 143

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

Re:Opposition by Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1939893 (class 33) - fernfortune - in the name of Shenzhen Fernfortune International Wines Co. Ltd.

Delegate:	M.Cooper
Representation:	Opponent: Jeremy Herz from Herbert Smith Freehills Applicant: Tom Lee
Decision:	2020 ATMO 143 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – grounds under s 62A established – registration refused.

Background

1.     This matter concerns an opposition by Southcorp Brands Pty Limited (‘Opponent’), under s 52 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Act’), to registration of the trade mark detailed below in the name of Shenzhen Fernfortune International Wines Co. limited (‘Applicant’):

Application Number: 1939893

Trade Mark: fernfortune (‘Trade Mark’)

Filing Date: 10 July 2018

Specification:

Class 33: Fruit extracts (alcoholic); Cocktails; Wine; Rice alcohol; Kirsch; Whisky; Vodka; Brandy; Alcoholic beverages (except beer); Baijiu (Chinese distilled alcoholic beverage)

(‘Goods’)

2.     The Trade Mark was examined and advertised as accepted for possible registration on 11 December 2018 in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks.

3.     On 4 February 2019, the Opponent filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose registration of the Trade Mark. On 1 March 2019, a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) was filed which cited opposition grounds under sections 44, 60 and 62A of the Act. The Applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 27 March 2019. The parties then filed their evidence as detailed further below.

Evidence

4.     Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) was filed by the Opponent on 28 June 2019. It comprised the declaration of Anna Gabrielle Gibson, the Opponent’s Intellectual Property Director, dated 28 June 2019, with Exhibits AGG-1 to AGG-20 (‘Gibson declaration’).

5.     The Applicant’s Evidence in Answer (‘EIA’) was filed on 27 September 2019 and comprised the declaration Zhongjun Ning, the Applicant’s legal representative[1], dated 26 September 2019 with Exhibits ZJN-1 to ZJN-6 (‘Ning declaration’).

[1] Gibson declaration, Exhibit AGG-1 indicates that Zhongjun Ning is also the Applicant’s director and major shareholder.

6.     The Opponent’s Evidence in Reply (‘EIR’) was filed on 3 December 2019 and comprised the declaration of Anna Gabrielle Gibson dated 3 December 2019 with Annexure AGG-1 (‘second Gibson declaration’).

7.     On 19 December 2019 the Opponent requested a hearing. In accordance with directions, the Opponent filed written submissions on 24 June 2020. The Applicant did not file any submissions or seek to appear at the hearing. I heard the opposition as delegate for the Registrar by teleconference on 8 July 2020. Jeremy Herz from Herbert Smith Freehills appeared for the Opponent.

Evidence in Support

8.     The Gibson declaration outlines the history and structure of the Opponent, a subsidiary of Treasury Wine Estates Limited (‘TWE’), and ‘one of the world’s largest premium wine producers’, comprising 80 brands and servicing markets across 5 continents. This includes an extensive stable of premium wine brands including internationally recognised brands such as ‘Penfolds’, ‘Rawson’s Retreat’, ‘Wynns’, ‘Wolf Blass’ and others. In particular, Gibson notes the iconic nature and international recognition of ‘Penfolds’, the ‘World’s Most Admired Wine Brand’ in 2016, which it introduced to China in 1995 through an exclusive distributor. Annexed information demonstrates significant net sales in China, establishing ‘Penfolds’ as one of TWE’s most important and valuable brands, with a significant commercial reputation and goodwill both in Australia and globally. Mainland China is said to be Australia’s second largest export market by volume and the number one destination for Australian wine exports by value. As ‘Penfolds’ translates to the Chinese phonetic approximation of ‘BEN FU’, the Opponent has adopted the Chinese characters for ‘BEN FU’ as a trade mark, which it has used since 1995 and under which it has promoted ‘Penfolds’ since 2014.  Gibson annexes various media releases and promotional material demonstrating key characteristics of the ‘Penfolds’ branding.

9.     Gibson notes the similarities between the Applicant’s use of the Trade Mark and the Opponent’s ‘Penfolds’ branding, as evidenced mainly in Exhibits AGG-17 to AGG-20, and summarised as follows:

·In its product branding, the Applicant uses the Chinese characters 芬富, (FEN FU), with interchangeable English translations of ‘Fernfortune’ or ‘Fernfolds’

·The Applicant’s wine products are made available for sale online including through various Chinese websites and platforms and are advertised using the Chinese characters for FEN FU in conjunction with ‘Fernfortune’ or ‘Fernfolds’, again used interchangeably. Pertinently, the English versions of its website display ‘Fernfolds’ (AGG-16).

·The Applicant also uses the Chinese characters for FEN FU interchangeably with ‘Fernfolds’ and ‘Fernfortune’ in its official customs documentation where 芬富 is used as the Applicant’s company name in conjunction with the English translation ‘Fernfortune’ or ‘Fernfolds’.

·The Chinese characters for ‘Fernfortune’ 芬富 (which transliterate as ‘FEN FU’) are similar to the Chinese characters for ‘‘Penfolds’’ 奔富 (‘BEN FU’), (Opponent’s Australian trade marks 1762317 and 1763028).

·The Chinese characters have an identical suffix. ‘FERNFOLDS’ and ‘PENFOLDS’ differ only by a prefix. The prefixes ‘FERN’ and ‘PEN’, however, are very similar, particularly for consumers of Chinese origin. First, ‘F’ and ‘P’ are similar looking letters when capitalised, especially when they are both used in stylised form. Secondly, the ‘R’ in FERN may not be properly pronounced by Chinese consumers given that the letter ‘r’ for Chinese natives does not produce a natural sound. This is supported by the fact that FEN FU (that is, without the letter ‘r’), is the Chinese equivalent of the FERNFOLDS mark, suggesting it is intended for Chinese consumers to pronounce the product name as ‘FENFOLDS’. As a result, a more accurate comparison is between the prefixes of ‘FEN’ and ‘PEN’, which are undoubtedly similar.

·The Applicant uses an ‘F’ Logo, similar to the stylised ‘P’ in the ‘Penfolds’ branding, with the Chinese characters for FEN FU in its branding used in conjunction with ‘Fernfortune’ or ‘Fernfolds’.The stylised ‘F’ appears intended to resemble the well-known stylised ‘P’ from the ‘Penfolds’ brand.

·In conjunction with the coloured logo, the Applicant’s wine branding bears the words “since 1886”. The Applicant was founded on 17 September 2010, not in 1886 as suggested in the logo. It is not coincidental that in seeking to falsely create a sense of history around its brand, that the Applicant chose a year which resembles the year of ‘Penfolds’ origins dating back to 1844.

·The Applicant’s FEN FU series wine range is branded “Fernfortune 365”, which appears to be an attempt to draw similarities with ‘Penfolds’ popular ‘Penfolds’ BIN 389” range.

·‘Fernfortune 365’ is advertised using ‘Bin88’ on the sfbest.com website. This appears to be an attempt to draw similarities with ‘Penfolds’ popular BIN range, of which the number ‘8’ is a common and recognisable feature, denoting a highly regarded variety of ‘Penfolds’ wine (‘Penfolds’ uses 8, 28, 98, 389).

10.     Gibson states her belief that the Applicant’s adoption of ‘FERNFOLDS’ and ‘FEN FU’ in Chinese characters, along with the stylised ‘F’, as well as the other branding elements noted above, constitutes a deliberate, bad faith attempt by the Applicant to confuse consumers, particularly of Chinese origin, into thinking that their wine products are associated with the ‘Penfolds’ brand, and to unfairly trade off the significant reputation TWE has in the brand.

Evidence in Answer

11.     The Ning declaration outlines the Applicant’s history, its establishment in 2010 and its use of the ‘fernfortune’ brand for red wine since 2013. He states ‘[t]o protect its brand reputation and to maintain its rights, Fernfortune applied for some trademarks, including the questioned mark ‘ “Fernfortune”, “芬富”, “Fernfolds”, etc.’ which, with the exception of ‘Fernfolds’ it has successfully registered in China. He claimed the successful Chinese registrations demonstrates ‘that the marks absolutely were not applied for in bad faith.’  

12.     Various documents are attached, which demonstrate the Applicant’s arrangements with Australian wine companies from which it purchases its wine, and its promotion and use of the Trade Mark, which are said to show that ‘Fernfortune’ is a famous wine brand in China.

13.     Explaining why the Applicant adopted the Trade Mark, he asserted that ‘ "Fern" is a plant that has long stems with feathery leaves and no flowers… Used in the trademark, it means that the red wine is from Australia and emits a fresh aroma. Its English pronunciation is exactly the same as the pronunciation of Chinese character "芬". Thus, in the mark name, “Fern” corresponds to Chinese character "芬". "Fortune" refers to refer to a large sum of money, and it corresponds to Chinese character “富”. That’s why Fernfortune Wines applied for mark “Fernfortune” and “芬 富”[2] at the same time’.

[2] The Applicant’s earlier TM applications 1843698 and 1844235 were opposed by this Opponent and the Applicant did not file a Notice of Intention to Defend. Consequently, both applications lapsed.

14.     In reference to the Opponent’s contentions regarding the similarity between its use of the stylised ‘P’ in ‘Penfolds’, and the Applicant’s use of a stylised ‘F’ on its labels, Ning states ‘[o]n the contrary, our trademark is with the beginning of letter “F”, and there is no design or color of the font. Therefore, we believe that from the perspective of general understanding and cognitive level, ordinary consumers will not be confused. Let alone that consumers who can afford for high-end wines must be of high level of cognition, so it is irrational for the opponent to think that our trademark is deceptive.’

15.     The Ning declaration does not otherwise address the assertions made in the Gibson declaration. In addition, many of the exhibits are untranslated and so it is difficult to ascertain how they support the statements made in the declaration.

Evidence in Reply

16.     The second Gibson declaration attaches a copy of the ATMO decision in the Applicant’s opposition to the Bilyara Vineyards Pty Ltd’s (a TWE subsidiary) application for registration of FEN FU, trade mark 1883865, as referred to in the Ning declaration. The decision issued in favour of Bilyara Vineyards[3] and the trade mark, FEN FU, was registered for ‘Wine’ in class 33.

[3] Shenzhen Fernfortune International Wines Co Limited v Bilyara Vineyards Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 131.

Submissions

17.     As noted above, only the Opponent provided written submissions and appeared at the hearing.

18.     Referring to the relevant authorities, the Opponent submits that the Applicant had clear knowledge of the Opponent’s ‘Penfolds’ brand because of its previous engagement with it in its opposition to the same Applicant’s trade mark application no. 1843698 also for ‘fernfortune’[4]. It contended that, in assessing bad faith, all the circumstances are relevant including how the trade mark is used in commerce. The Applicant’s use of the Trade Mark with elements of the Opponent’s ‘Penfolds’ brand was said to establish a strong basis for finding bad faith, even if the attempt to trade off the Opponent’s brand was unsuccessful. In particular, the Opponent’s strong reputation in its ‘Penfolds’ wine brand, known as ‘BEN FU’ and with significant sales growth in China, when considered together with the Applicant’s adoption of Chinese characters translating to ‘FEN FU’, its use of ‘Fernfolds’ interchangeably with the Trade Mark and its use of other Penfold’s branding indicia including its red livery, demonstrates the Applicant’s intention to invoke a connection with, or to create a misconception that, it is associated with the Opponent’s ‘Penfolds’ brand. It was submitted that it follows that the circumstances surrounding the use of the Trade Mark show that the Opponent’s conduct falls short of acceptable commercial standards and objectively demonstrates bad faith.

[4] The Applicant failed to file a Notice of Intention to Defend.

Grounds of Opposition and Onus

19.     The Opponent bears the onus of establishing one or more of the grounds of opposition and the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.[5]

[5] Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156 affirming the approach of Gyles J in Pfizer Products Inc. v Karam [2006] FCA 1663; (2006) 70 IPR 599 [6-26].

20. As noted above, the opposition grounds claimed in the SGP are those under ss 44, 60 and 62A of the Act. At the hearing, the Opponent confirmed it relied only on s 62A.

21.     The time at which a ground of opposition must be established is the date of filing of the application for registration.[6] In this case that date is 10 July 2018 (‘the relevant date’).

[6] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 [595].

22.     If the opponent provides evidence from which it can be inferred that bad faith exists, an applicant who fails to rebut that inference runs the risk of the matter being decided in favour of the opponent.[7]

[7] Footwear Industries Pty Ltd v PT Alasmas Berkat Utama [2014] ATMO 41 [26-7].

Section 62A

23. Section 62A of the Act provides:

Application made in bad faith

The registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the application was made in bad faith.

24.     The Opponent particularised this ground as follows:

The Applicant seeks to take unfair advantage of the TWE Group, including the Opponent, by misusing TWE’s intellectual property and filing applications in bad faith, including in Australia and China.

The Applicant has sought registration in Australia and China of Chinese characters which have identical pronunciation to TWE Group’s FEN FU (Chinese) mark in class 33, which is the transliteration of TWE Group’s well known WOLF BLASS mark. Under its previous name, Shenzhen Oaktree Wine Co. Ltd, the Applicant also sought to register the trade mark FERNFOLDS in China, which is similar to the Opponent’s ‘PENFOLDS’ mark. The Opponent is also aware of use of the FERNFOLDS mark in China by the Applicant. These trade marks are intended to imitate, pass off with or make an association with TWE Group brands.

The Applicant seeks to create in the minds of consumers an association between TWE Group’s Chinese character FEN FU mark, and the opposed mark “fernfortune”, which is an alternative translation of the Chinese characters back into English. In turn, the Applicant is seeking to misrepresent a connection or association with TWE, its products and its reputation, when there is none.

The Opponent has successfully opposed Australian trade mark application numbers 1843698 FERNFORTUNE and 1844235 FEN FU (Chinese characters). The Applicant has indicated in evidence available to the Applicant that the Chinese characters the subject of TM no 1844235, which appear in the Chinese corporate name of the Applicant, translate as FERNFOLDS. However, for the purposes of its Australian trade mark applications including the opposed application, the Applicant has translated this component of its name as “fernfortune”, which is also the opposed mark. The opposed application for “fernfortune” is thus a veiled attempt by the Applicant to escape scrutiny of its more obvious bad faith activity through adoption of “fernfolds”. However, the Applicant’s intention to dishonestly take advantage of TWE Group’s brands through use of the opposed mark remains.

The applications noted above are some examples of a pattern of bad faith activity by the Applicant targeted at the TWE Group and its intellectual property and other rights. The opposed application is a further instance of bad faith behaviour through which the Applicant seeks to take unfair advantage of the TWE Group.

The Applicant’s conduct falls short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons

25. The s 62A principles were confirmed by Bennett J in DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd (‘DC Comics’)[8] :

The question is whether the conduct falls short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons in the particular area. It is whether the knowledge of the applicant was such that the decision to apply for registration would be regarded as in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards.

[8] [2013] FCA 478 [62].

26. Bennett J held that an intention to use a trade mark in such a way as to gain a benefit by appropriating the indicia and reputation of another trader was sufficient to constitute ‘bad faith’ within the meaning of s 62A of the Act.[9]

[9] Ibid 73-4.

27. Section 62A was also considered in Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd (No 3), which referred to and summarised the principles in DC Comics in part as follows:

Bad faith is a combined test that involves subjective and objective elements. The subjective element refers to the knowledge of the relevant person at the time of making the application. The objective element requires the decision-maker to decide whether, in the light of that knowledge, the relevant person’s behaviour fell short of acceptable commercial standards.[10]

[10] [2017] FCA 60 [196].

28.     Bad faith may include dishonesty or fraud but neither is a prerequisite to such a finding.[11] Bad faith in the context of s 62A is a wider concept than dishonesty or fraud and is capable of being applied to a wide variety of conduct[12].While the seriousness of an allegation of bad faith requires correspondingly cogent evidence, it is clear that the standard of proof in relation to such an allegation is the balance of probabilities, rather than that of beyond reasonable doubt.[13]

[11] Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) (2012) 201 FCR 565; 288 ALR 727; [2012] FCA 81 [164] (‘Fry Consulting’).

[12] Ibid.

[13] Fry Consulting [145]; DC Comics [61]-[62].

29.     The Applicant’s knowledge of the Opponent’s business and the ‘Penfolds’ brand at the relevant date is established by the following evidence:

·The Applicant had previously applied for registration of the trade mark ‘fernfortune’ (no. 1843698) on 10 May 2017. The Opponent opposed it and the Applicant did not file a Notification of Intention to Defend. Consequently, it lapsed.

·The Applicant made unsuccessful Australian trade mark applications for the Chinese characters’芬富’ (TM 1844235) on 11 May 2017 and 25 May 2018 (TM 1929501) in which it acknowledged the characters could be transliterated as FEN FU or FENG FU[14].

·The same Chinese characters appear in the Applicant’s company name which appears frequently in the exhibits, prior to the relevant date, as ‘Fernfolds’.

·The Applicant unsuccessfully opposed the registration of Australian trade mark 1883865 for ‘FEN FU’, filed by Bilyara Vineyards Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of TWE, on 21 October 2017.[15]

·The Applicant previously applied for but was refused registration of the ‘Fernfolds’ trade mark in China.[16]

[14] The Applicant did not file a Notice of Intention to Defend (1844235) and failed to respond to an adverse examination report (1929501).

[15] See above n 2. Although the decision was not made until after the relevant date.

[16] Ning declaration, paragraph 9.

30.     On the basis of the above interactions between the Applicant and Opponent, and the Opponent’s unchallenged evidence of its strong sales, reputation and extensive and long-standing use of its trade marks ‘PENFOLDS’, ‘BEN FU’ and ‘奔富’ (the Chinese characters for BEN FU) for its Penfolds wine, particularly in China, it is inconceivable that the Applicant, as a direct competitor, chose the Trade Mark unaware of the Opponent and its trade marks. It follows that I am satisfied that the Applicant filed the Trade Mark with knowledge of those marks and their reputation.

31.     In relation to the objective criteria, I note the following:

·     The get-up/trade dress adopted by the Applicant in respect of the Trade Mark resembles the ‘Penfolds’ branding in several respects. The claims and observations in this regard as noted in the Gibson declaration and summarised above, were established by this unchallenged objective evidence (paragraph 9).

·     The same Chinese characters which the Applicant claims are said to represent ‘fernfortune’ also appear in the Applicant’s company name, but, prior to the relevant date, the Applicant has translated them as ‘Fernfolds’ in many exhibits[17], a name with marked similarity to ‘Penfolds’. The corresponding Chinese characters are also visually and aurally similar:  芬富 and 奔富 respectively, as are the respective transliterations of ‘Fen Fu’ and ‘Ben Fu’.

·     When the Applicant filed its Australian trade mark applications 1844235 and 1929501 for 芬富 it noted in endorsements that these ‘CHINESE characters appearing in the trade mark may be transliterated as FEN FU[18] which may be translated into English as COMBINED WORDS WHICH HAS NO MEANING.’ This is an apparent deliberate obfuscation of the Applicant’s adopted meaning, given the explanation in the Ning declaration of the derivation of ‘fernfortune’ that ‘[i]ts English pronunciation is exactly the same as the pronunciation of Chinese character "芬". Thus, in the mark name, “Fern” corresponds to Chinese character "芬". "Fortune" refers to refer to a large sum of money, and it corresponds to Chinese character “富”. That’s why Fernfortune Wines applied for mark “Fernfortune” and “芬 富” at the same time.’[19]

·     The Australian Trade Mark for ‘FEN FU’ (TM 1883865), a transliteration of “芬 富”, is owned by Bilyara Vineyards Pty Ltd (‘Bilyara’), another of TWE’s subsidiaries. The Applicant’s TM application for “芬 富” (TM 1844235), which it did not defend, was opposed by Bilyara. The Applicant was therefore well aware of TWE’s interest (through another subsidiary) in these Chinese characters/transliteration before the relevant date.

[17] Gibson declaration, Exhibits AGG-2 to AGG-4 and AGG-16 to AGG-20.

[18] The Applicant’s application for TM 1929501 identified the CHINESE characters appearing in the trade mark as ‘FENG FU’.

[19] Ning declaration, paragraph 20.

32.     In DC Comics the applicant had applied for the word trade mark “Superman Workout’ but evidence established that, at the time of application, it was using that trade mark with a shield device which resembled that used in the opponent’s trade mark. Bennett J, in finding the applicant’s conduct in this regard fell short of the “standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons” and constituted bad faith under s 62A, said:

In my view, the inference is clear, from the immediate use of the Trade Mark together with the BG Shield Device that, in making the application to register the Trade Mark, Mr Gabrielle (and therefore Cheqout) intended to use it in combination with the BG Shield Device in order to strengthen the allusion to Superman. The inference can also be drawn that this use was designed to gain a benefit by appropriating Superman indicia and the reputation of the DC Comics superhero, so as to further the viewer’s association between the Trade Mark and the Superman word mark.[20]

[20] DC Comics [73].

33.     The Applicant has sought to file ‘fernfortune’ for its class 33 goods, including wine. On the face of it, this is uncontroversial however, similarly to DC Comics, it is the Applicant’s actual use of the Trade Mark which gives rise to inferences relevant to the s 62A ground. Essentially the Applicant claims the Trade Mark, ‘fernfortune’, is represented by the Chinese characters “芬 富”, which transliterate as FEN FU, which appear in its company name and appear on much of its advertising and product promotion. Contrary to its claims, in its use of those characters, the Applicant frequently portrays them in its English language publications and website as ‘Fernfolds’, markedly similar to ‘Penfolds’. Combined with this is the objective evidence of the Applicant’s adoption of insignia/indicia which clearly alludes to and adopts elements of the Opponent’s famous ‘Penfolds’ brand (as noted at paragraphs 9 and 32 above). I infer from this conduct, in the absence of any submissions from the Applicant or relevant response in the Ning declaration, that the Applicant, in making the Trade Mark application, intended to use it in combination with this other indicia, fully aware of the significant reputation in Australia and China of the Opponent’s ‘Penfolds’ brand, in order to create an allusion to ‘Penfolds’ wine. I draw the further inference that this use was designed to gain a benefit by appropriating ‘Penfolds’ indicia and ‘Penfolds’ significant reputation so as to confuse consumers, particularly of Chinese origin, into thinking that the Applicant’s wine products are associated with the ‘Penfolds’ brand and/or with the intention of gaining some benefit from the reputation subsisting in the Opponent’s trade marks.

34.     I am satisfied that, in all of the particular circumstances, there is sufficient cogent evidence to find that the Applicant’s conduct in applying to register the Trade Mark might be said to constitute conduct ‘falling short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons’.[21] That is, the Applicant’s knowledge was such that its decision to apply for registration of the Trade Mark on 10 July 2018 would be regarded as in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards in the wine industry.

[21] Fry Consulting [165]– [166].

35. It follows that the s 62A ground of opposition has been established.

Decision

36. Section 55 of the Act relevantly provides:

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.

Note: For limitations see section 6.

37.     Subsection (3) does not apply to these proceedings. Accordingly, I refuse to register trade mark application 1939893.

Costs

38. Both parties sought costs. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. As the Opponent has established a ground of opposition, I award costs against the Applicant under section 221 of the Act in the amounts set out in Schedule 8 of the Trade Mark Regulations 1995 (Cth).

Mary-Ann Cooper

Hearing Officer

Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks
31 August 2020