The White Company (UK) Limited v White Homewares Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application by White Homewares Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to serve further evidence in opposition proceedings brought by The White Company (UK) Limited (the Opponent). The proceedings were heard by Nicole Worth, a Hearing Officer of the Trade Marks Hearings.

The legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether to permit the Opponent to adduce further evidence, which was stated to be relevant to the question of likelihood of deception or confusion under section 60 of the relevant Act. This evidence comprised declarations from the Opponent's Chief Executive Officer and its legal representatives, detailing the Opponent's products being supplied to the Hotel Windsor in Melbourne, advertised on an Australian distributor's website, and made available in hotels internationally.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented, noting that the Opponent's goods were described as "luxury bath and body ranges" and The White Company as a "luxury brand" in a press release from the Hotel Windsor. The evidence also indicated that the Opponent's goods had been available in hotels in countries other than Australia, with a majority of these listings appearing to be in the United Kingdom.

Ultimately, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the ground of opposition under section 62A had been established, and therefore, the Opponent's application to serve further evidence was not granted in the context of that specific ground. The Hearing Officer decided to refuse the opposition, allowing the trade mark applications to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent.