Urban Clean IP Pty Ltd v Urban You Pty Ltd

[2020] ATMO 135

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

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

Re:Opposition by Urban Clean IP Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 1864656 (classes 35, 37 & 44) – URBAN YOU – in the name of Urban You Pty Ltd

Delegate:	Nicholas Barbey
Representation:	Opponent: IP Partnership Applicant: K&L Gates
Decision:	2020 ATMO 135 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – ss 44 and 60 considered – neither established – trade mark may proceed to registration

Background

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

   Trade Mark:  URBAN YOU (‘Trade Mark’)

   Application Number:                  1864656

   Applicant:  Urban You Pty Ltd (‘Applicant’)

   Filing Date:  9 August 2017

   Specification:  Class 35: Domestic and/or trade personnel placement; domestic and/or trade employment, recruitment and placement services; consultancy services relating to domestic and/or trade employment, recruitment and placement; procurement of contracts relating to domestic and/or trade services (for others); business management, administration and marketing services for domestic and/or trade service providers, including cleaners, gardeners and/or tradespeople; provision of an on-line marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods and services; provision of an on-line marketplace for buyers and sellers of domestic and/or trade services; compilation of information relating to domestic and/or trade services and domestic and/or trade service providers into computer databases; providing business information via a global computer network

   Class 37: Cleaning services including cleaning of buildings, cleaning of furniture, rugs, carpets, curtains, household and other utensils, carpet and rug shampooing services, washing services, drying services, disinfecting services, deodorising services; domestic cleaning; domestic cleaning services; house cleaning services; office cleaning services; provision of cleaning services; end of lease cleaning; post renovation cleaning; trades person and handyman services included in this class; providing information services regarding all of the aforementioned services via a website and/or smart phone, tablet or other mobile device app (applications)

   Class 44: Cleaning services including cleaning of buildings, cleaning of furniture, rugs, carpets, curtains, household and other utensils, carpet and rug shampooing services, washing services, drying services, disinfecting services, deodorising services; domestic cleaning; domestic cleaning services; house cleaning services; office cleaning services; provision of cleaning services; end of lease cleaning; post renovation cleaning; trades person and handyman services included in this class; providing information services regarding all of the aforementioned services via a website and/or smart phone, tablet or other mobile device app (applications)

   (‘Applicant’s Services’)

2. The application to register the Trade Mark was examined as required by s 31 of the Act and its acceptance was advertised in the Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks on 14 June 2018.

3. The Opponent filed its notice of intention to oppose registration on 18 July 2018 and a Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’) on 16 August 2018. A notice of intention to defend the Trade Mark was filed by the Applicant on 18 October 2018.

4. Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) was filed by the Opponent which consisted of a single declaration made by Damien Boehm (Director of the Opponent) dated 27 March 2019 (‘Boehm Declaration’). The Applicant did not file evidence in answer.

5. An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. The Opponent filed written submissions which were prepared by IP Partnership (‘Opponent’s Submissions’) on 10 April 2020 and the Applicant filed written submissions which were prepared by K&L Gates (‘Applicant’s Submissions’) on 17 April 2020. As a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, I heard this matter by video conference on 24 April 2020. The Opponent was represented at the hearing by Samuel Rees, Molly Flynn and Ania Salehirad from IP Partnership. The Applicant elected to rely on its written submissions and did not attend the hearing.

Grounds of opposition, onus and standard of proof

1. The SGP nominated grounds of opposition under ss 44, 58A and 60 of the Act. However, the s 58A ground of opposition was not pursued in the Opponent’s Submissions or at the hearing.

2. The Opponent bears the onus of establishing at least one of the pursued grounds of opposition.[1] The relevant standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard based on the balance of probabilities.[2] The date at which the rights of the parties are to be determined is 9 August 2017, being both the filing and priority date of the Trade Mark.

   [1] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32].

   [2] Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133].

Evidence

Preliminary matter

1. The Applicant objected to certain parts of the Opponent’s Submissions. Specifically, it was alleged that the Opponent referenced ‘factual allegations that are not in evidence’ and this constitutes an introduction of further evidence.[3] Having reviewed the material, there is some merit in the Applicant’s objection. Ultimately, the specific parts of the Opponent’s Submissions which were objected to are immaterial to the outcome of this matter. As such, evaluating their admissibility is not required given my decision does not rely on any of the identified parts.

The Opponent’s evidence

[3] Applicant’s Submissions, [21]-[27].

1. At the outset, I note the Boehm Declaration contains no documentary evidence to support any statements made therein. This does not appear to be an inadvertent omission as the declarant never refers to any exhibits or annexures. The Applicant highlighted this and submitted that the Boehm Declaration should, at the very least, be afforded minimal weight.[4] I agree that the absence of any documentary evidence significantly diminishes the probative value of the Boehm Declaration and, where relevant to the discussion below, will treat the declarant’s statements accordingly.  

   [4] Ibid [17]-[20].

10.  According to the Boehm Declaration, DRC Deery Pty Ltd (‘Deery’) first used the sign ‘Urban Clean’ as a trade mark in 2008 in respect of various business, advertising and commercial cleaning services. The declarant explains that Deery promoted these services via the website ‘ which has been live since at least April 2009.

11.  The declarant states that Deery ‘sold Intellectual Property including the website and the unregistered [trade mark] for the words “Urban Clean”’ to the Opponent in 2014.[5] In this context, the declarant asserts that the Opponent and its predecessor in title have continuously used the term ‘Urban Clean’ as a trade mark since 2008. Based on this prolonged use, the declarant believes that ‘Urban Clean’ is recognised by consumers ‘as being associated with the Opponent's business and the Opponent's supply of Services and commercial cleaning services throughout Australia’.[6]

[5] Boehm Declaration, [8].

[6] Ibid [9].

12.  The Boehm Declaration mentions that the Opponent has secured trade mark registration in the United States of America for a trade mark ‘comprising of the words “Urban Clean”’.[7] The Opponent is also the owner of the following Australian trade mark registrations:

[7] Ibid [18]. The declarant particularises United States of America trade mark registration number 5361899 which has a registration date of 26 December 2017 and the registered owner is listed as Damien Boehm in his personal capacity. This registration corresponds to a trade mark with the same representation as Australian trade mark registration number 1619031.

Trade Mark:  (‘Device Mark’)

Registration Number:                 1619031

Priority Date:  23 April 2014

Specification:  Class 35: advertising; business management; business administration; and office functions

Class 37: cleaning services; contract cleaning; carpet cleaning; commercial and industrial cleaning; facility

Trade Mark:  URBANCLEAN   (‘Word Mark’)

Registration Number:                 1780437

Priority Date:  30 June 2016

Specification:  Class 35: (services including) marketing; business advice; business consultancy; advisory services relating to customer service 

The full specification appears in the Annexure to this decision.

13.  In view of these Australian trade mark registrations, the declarant submits that the Trade Mark should be rejected because it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the Device Mark and the Word Mark.[8] The declarant observes that the Trade Mark has a later priority date than the both these trade marks and it is ‘lodged in a class services which is deceptively similar to the Opponent's services’.[9]

[8] Ibid [24]-[25].

[9] Ibid [26].

14.  The remainder of the Boehm Declaration concerns the alleged reputation acquired in Australia by the Device Mark, the Word Mark and the Opponent’s use of various trade marks incorporating the term ‘Urban Clean’ since 2008. Relevantly, the declarant states that ‘Urban Clean’ has been used in emails, marketing activities, business cards and displayed on branded clothing.[10] The declarant also states that ‘the word "Urban" has acquired a reputation in Australia as being associated with services supplied by the Opponent’.[11]

Discussion

[10] Ibid [20].

[11] Ibid [27].

Section 44

15. Section 44 of the Act relevantly provides:

Identical etc. trade marks

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

(a) it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:

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

(ii) a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar services or closely related goods 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 services is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar services or closely related goods.

16.  To establish this ground of opposition, the Opponent must identify at least one trade mark which satisfies the following requirements:

1. it is in the name of a person other than the Applicant;

2. it has a priority date which is earlier than that of the Trade Mark;

3. it is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the Trade Mark; and

4. it is in respect of services and/or goods which are either similar or closely related to the Applicant’s Services.

17.  The SGP particularised the Device Mark and the Word Mark as supporting this ground of opposition. Common to both trade marks are the words ‘URBAN’ and ‘CLEAN’ which, unsurprisingly, the Opponent’s Submissions are primarily focused on. As ‘URBANCLEAN’ constitutes the sole element of the Word Mark, the following discussion will focus on a comparison between the Word Mark and the Trade Mark. The premise being that if the Word Mark is not found to be at least deceptively similar to the Trade Mark, it stands to reason that the Device Mark is also not deceptively similar to the Trade Mark given it plainly possesses a higher degree of dissimilarity.

18.  Turning to the matter at hand, the Word Mark is registered by a person other than the Applicant and it has a priority date earlier than 9 August 2017. It follows that requirements (i) and (ii) as outlined at [16] are satisfied. In relation to requirement (iii), the test for ‘substantial identity’ was set out in Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (‘Shell’):

In considering whether marks are substantially identical they should, I think, 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.[12]

[12] [1963] HCA 66, [12] (‘Shell’).

19.  The Trade Mark and the Word Mark are reproduced below:

Trade Mark	Word Mark
URBAN YOU	URBANCLEAN

20.  A side by side comparison reveals clear differences between the trade marks, despite both trade marks sharing the common word element ‘URBAN’. Notably, ‘YOU’ is a separate word element in the Trade Mark which bears no direct descriptive relevance in relation to the Applicant’s Services. It may be defined as ‘used to refer to the person addressed’[13] and cannot be discounted as a non-essential feature of the Trade Mark. In contrast, the Word Mark contains the suffix CLEAN as its secondary part and is conjoined to ‘URBAN’. There are several meanings that may be ascribed to the word ‘CLEAN’, including as an adjective to be ‘free from dirt or filth; unsoiled; unstained’ or as a verb used ‘to perform or to undergo a process of cleaning’.[14] These differences are sufficient for me to conclude the trade marks are not substantially identical.

[13] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 6 July 2020) ‘you’ (def 1).

[14] Ibid, ‘clean’ (defs 1 and 27).

21. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider whether the respective trade marks are deceptively similar. Section 10 of the Act defines ‘deceptively similar’ in the following manner:

Definition of deceptively similar

For the purposes of this Act, a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trade mark if it so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

22.  The assessment of deceptive similarity was considered by Windeyer J in Shell who observed:

On the question of deceptive similarity a different comparison must be made from that which is necessary when substantial identity is in question. The marks are not now to be looked at side by side. The issue is not abstract similarity, but deceptive similarity. Therefore the comparison is the familiar one of trade mark law. It is between, on the one hand, the impression based on recollection of the plaintiff's mark that persons of ordinary intelligence and memory would have; and, on the other hand, the impressions that such persons would get from the defendant's [mark].[15]

[15] Shell (n 12) [13].

1. The primary argument advanced by the Opponent is that ‘URBAN’ forms the essential feature of the Word Mark and regard should only be given to this feature when comparing the trade marks. The Opponent concedes that ‘CLEAN’ is descriptive in the context of cleaning related services[16] but submits that ‘URBAN’ is ‘not descriptive or common to the trade of commercial cleaning’.[17] The Opponent argues that it is the presence of ‘URBAN’ which enables the Word Mark to distinguish the services provided by the Opponent from other traders. In this context, so the argument goes, consumers will place a stronger emphasis on and refer to ‘URBAN’ when imperfectly recalling the Word Mark.[18]

   [16] Opponent’s Submissions, [20].

   [17] Ibid [16].

   [18] Ibid, [20]–[22].

24.  Meanwhile, the Applicant’s Submissions emphasise that the trade marks must be considered as wholes and it is impermissible to reduce the Word Mark to ‘URBAN’ solus. Contrary to the Opponent’s Submissions, the Applicant contends that ‘URBAN’ is descriptive because it simply indicates to consumers that the services offered by the Opponent are ‘provided in or for urban environments’.[19] The Applicant contends that the elements in the Word Mark are individually and collectively descriptive and therefore the scope of protection afforded to the Word Mark must be construed narrowly.

[19] Applicant’s Submissions, [43].

25.  In my assessment, the Trade Mark and the Word Mark are not deceptively similar. The submissions of each party centred around the shared element – namely, the word ‘URBAN’. As pointed out by the Applicant, the recent Federal Court decision of Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirene Pty Ltd (‘Urban Alley’)[20] is relevant to the present enquiry. In this decision, O’Bryan J observed the following when considering the ordinary signification of the word ‘URBAN’ when used in relation to beer and breweries:

The evidence referred to above shows that, in relation to beer, as at the filing date of the Urban Ale mark, the word “urban” had a tangible meaning. At one level, it describes the beer as having been produced in a city location and, at another level, it connotes that the beer has been produced in an inner-city craft brewery. As such, the use of the word is descriptive and laudatory and the evidence shows that it was commonly used in that manner.[21]

[20] [2020] FCA 82 (‘Urban Alley’).

[21] Ibid [141] (emphasis added).

26.  While the facts of Urban Alley are not directly analogous to the present circumstances, O’Bryan J’s observations nevertheless provide useful guidance in relation to the ordinary signification of the word ‘URBAN’. The word ‘URBAN’ may be defined as ‘of, relating to, or comprising a city or town’[22] and this is the meaning ordinary consumers are likely to ascribe to it. I concur with the Applicant’s contention that a consumer would likely perceive ‘URBAN’ as denoting the location, subject matter or intended purpose of the services provided. As such, ‘URBAN’ retains a descriptive meaning in the context of the services provided by each party and its mere presence within each trade mark does not automatically render them deceptively similar. This is because it is well established that consideration must be given to the trade marks in their entirety.[23] To this end, the Word Mark is constituted by two known words which are of equal weight and individually retain a degree of descriptiveness in the context of the services provided by the Opponent. The identity of the Word Mark thus resides in this combination and not ‘URBAN’ solus as advanced by the Opponent. The same is true of the Trade Mark insofar as should it eventually attain registration, the Applicant would not be entitled to a monopoly over the word ‘URBAN’ solus.

[22] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 6 July 2020) ‘urban’ (def 1).

[23] Clark v Sharp (1898) 15 RPC 141, 146.

27.  Visually, the Trade Mark presents as two distinct words with similar weight whereas the Word Mark is depicted as a single word with the conjoining of ‘URBAN’ and ‘CLEAN’ in capitalised letters. Arguably, the conjoining of ‘URBAN’ and ‘CLEAN’ in the Word Mark reinforces the relationship between these two words. That is, they should be read together rather than artificially separating them and ignoring the suffix ‘CLEAN’ in the Word Mark completely. While both trade marks share the first element of ‘URBAN’, the second part of the respective trade marks are different. The words ‘YOU’ and ‘CLEAN’ share no letters in common nor resemblance in length. Their presence alters the visual appearance of the respective trade marks when they are considered as wholes.

28.  An aural comparison of the trade marks reveals further differences. I consider the Word Mark would ordinarily be pronounced with a natural break between the words ‘URBAN’ and ‘CLEAN’. Given the descriptive nature of the word ‘URBAN’ in the context of the services provided by the respective parties, it is highly unlikely that either trade mark would be verbalised as simply ‘URBAN’ in solus and thereby wholly ignoring a significant portion of the Word Mark and the Trade Mark. It follows that the second part of the trade marks are likely to be recalled and articulated. In this context, ‘YOU’ and ‘CLEAN’ are highly unlikely to be mispronounced or audibly mistaken for one another. When the trade marks are considered as wholes, the trade marks do not sound alike even when the ordinary consumer’s propensity to slur the ending of words is accounted for.[24]

[24] London Lubricants (1920) Ltd's Appn (1925) 42 RPC 264.

29.  Furthermore, the Word Mark and Trade Mark diverge conceptually. The Applicant contends that the Word Mark conveys the idea of a cleaning service in or for urban environments.[25] In contrast, it is alleged that the Trade Mark alludes to the recipient of the services given the presence of ‘YOU’ is evocative of the consumer’s wants or needs. The Applicant’s characterisation of the respective trade marks is plausible. The Trade Mark’s unusual combination of ‘URBAN’ and ‘YOU’, in that sequence, conveys a somewhat nebulous meaning whereas the Word Mark has a readily ascertainable meaning. This conceptual dissimilarity further diminishes the potential for confusion.

[25] Applicant’s Submissions, [58].

30.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no real and tangible danger of confusion between the Trade Mark and the Word Mark. The trade marks are sufficiently dissimilar notwithstanding the common element of ‘URBAN’. The overall impression created by the Word Mark is sufficiently dissimilar to that conveyed by the Trade Mark when regard is had to the visual, aural and conceptual differences. Even allowing for imperfect recollection, I am satisfied that the trade marks are readily distinguished when considered in their entirety. Given this finding, it follows that the Device Mark is also not deceptively similar to the Trade Mark.

31.  As the Trade Mark is not substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, either the Device Mark or the Word Mark, it is redundant to consider whether any of the Applicant’s Services are the same as or of the same description to the registered services of the Word Mark and the Device Mark.

32. The s 44 ground of opposition has not been established.

Section 60

33.  This ground of opposition was particularised in the SGP as follows:

The Opponent is the owner of Trade Marks 1780437 and 1619031 which have been continuously used in Australia since 2 July 2014. In addition the Opponent's registered Trade Mark for the word 'UrbanClean' the Opponent also promotes its business using the words, separated as follows: 'Urban Clean'. Our Client uses the website to promote its cleaning services. Urban Clean is a renowned for cleaning commercial space, offices and medical centers. The Urban Clean Franchise System has been promoted accross [sic] Australia since 2014 and Franchises are located in QLD, NSW, Victoria, A.C.T and S.A.

34. Section 60 of the Act relevantly provides:

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.

35.  To establish this ground of opposition, the Opponent must demonstrate the existence of another trade mark which had acquired a reputation in Australia before 9 August 2017. The Opponent must then show that because of this reputation use of the Trade Mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. The meaning of reputation was considered by Kenny J in McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick as referring to ‘the recognition of the [trade mark] by the public generally’.[26] Her Honour quoted with approval the following statement of Lockhart J in Re ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd, (‘ConAgra’):[27]

   [R]eputation within the jurisdiction may be proved by a variety of means including advertisements on television or radio, or in magazines and newspapers within the forum. It may be established by showing constant travel of people between other countries and the forum and that people within the forum, (whether residents there or persons simply visiting there from other countries) are exposed to the goods of the overseas owner ...

   [26] [2000] FCA 1335, [81].

   [27] [1992] FCA 159, [118].

37.  The reputation in the other trade mark must be amongst a ‘significant’ or ‘substantial’ number of Australian consumers[28] but this is tempered by the nature of the relevant market. The reputation must also be established as a matter of fact by the Opponent.[29]

[28] See Renaud Cointreau & Cie v Cordon Bleu International Ltee [2001] FCA 1170; ConAgra (n 27).

[29] ConAgra (n 27) [77].

38.  I have considered the totality of the Opponent’s evidence and find it fails to establish, as a matter of fact, that the Device Mark, the Word Mark, or any other common law trade mark incorporating the term ‘URBAN CLEAN’, had acquired a reputation in Australia before 9 August 2017. As explained at [9] of this decision, the Boehm Declaration is not supported by any documentary evidence. As such, I am not in a position to assess how and what trade mark(s) were allegedly used by the Opponent before 9 August 2017. Nor am I able to accurately discern what services have been provided under any of the trade marks. As such, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions regarding the nature of the reputation that may exist in relation to any of the trade marks purportedly used by the Opponent.

39.  Moreover, the Boehm Declaration does not disclose any revenue, advertising or promotional figures in relation to the services allegedly provided by the Opponent under any of its trade marks. I note the SGP mentions the ‘Urban Clean Franchise System’ and Mr Rees drew attention to this at the hearing. According to Mr Rees, the Opponent’s franchise system has approximately 105 franchisees and this in itself demonstrates a large quantum of sales throughout Australia. However, no documentary evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the only evidence before me are statements made by the declarant in the Boehm Declaration. These are bald and unsupported statements which fall well short of establishing that any of the trade marks allegedly used by the Opponent had, as a matter of fact, acquired a reputation in Australia as at 9 August 2017.

40. Accordingly, the dearth of evidence means that I cannot be satisfied that the Word Mark, Device Mark, or any other common law trade mark used by the Opponent, had acquired a reputation in Australia as at 9 August 2017 amongst a significant or substantial number of Australian consumers. As s 60(a) of the Act has not been satisfied, consideration of s 60(b) is not required.

41. The s 60 ground of opposition has not been established.

Decision

42. 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.

43.  The Opponent has not established a ground of opposition. It follows that trade mark application number 1864656 may proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision.

44.  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 and the disposition of the application should be in accordance with the court’s order or direction.

Costs

45. The Applicant has sought an award of costs in its favour. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Accordingly, I award costs against the Opponent as per s 221 of the Act in the amounts set out in Schedule 8 of the Trade Mark Regulations 1995 (Cth).

Nicholas Barbey
Hearing Officer
Oppositions and Hearings
Trade Marks and Designs
11 August 2020

Annexure

Class 35: Administration relating to marketing; Advice relating to marketing management; Business advice relating to marketing; Business consultancy services relating to marketing; Business consultancy services relating to the marketing of fund raising campaigns; Conducting of marketing studies; Consultancy relating to marketing; Design of marketing material; Direct marketing; Direct marketing and selling by home party plan; Marketing; Marketing advisory services; Marketing agency services; Marketing analysis; Marketing and business development of inventions; Marketing and sales channel management; Marketing assistance; Marketing consultancy; Marketing forecasting; Marketing information; Marketing management advice; Marketing research; Marketing studies; Planning of marketing strategies; Planning services for marketing studies; Preparation of marketing plans; Preparation of reports for marketing; Product marketing; Production of sound recordings for marketing purposes; Production of video recordings for marketing purposes; Promotional marketing; Provision of advice relating to marketing; Provision of information relating to marketing; Research services relating to marketing; Search engine optimisation services (marketing services); Sponsorship (promotion and marketing services); Telephone marketing services; Administration of the business affairs of franchises; Business advisory services relating to the establishment of franchises; Business advisory services relating to the operation of franchises; Business assistance relating to the establishment of franchises; Provision of assistance (business) in the establishment of franchises; Provision of assistance (business) in the operation of franchises; Service to assist in establishing a network of business contacts; Administration of business affairs; Administration of businesses; Administration of the business affairs of franchises; Administration relating to business appraisal; Administration relating to business planning; Advice relating to business management; Advice relating to business organisation; Advice relating to the acquisition of businesses; Advice relating to the sale of businesses; Advisory services for business management; Advisory services for business management; Advisory services relating to business management; Advisory services relating to business organisation; Advisory services relating to business planning; Advisory services relating to business risk management; Arranging business introductions; Arranging business shows; Arranging exhibitions for business purposes; Association services being the provision of business support or advice; Benchmarking (evaluation of business organisation practices); Business accounts management; Business acquisitions consulting services; Business administration; Business administration advisory services; Business administration consultancy; Business advertising services relating to franchising; Business advice; Business advice relating to advertising; Business advice relating to franchising; Business advice relating to marketing; Business advisory services; Business advisory services relating to product development; Business advisory services relating to the establishment of franchises; Business advisory services relating to the management of businesses; Business advisory services relating to the operation of franchises; Business analysis services; Business assistance; Business assistance relating to corporate identity; Business assistance relating to franchising; Business assistance relating to the establishment of franchises; Business consultancy; Business consultancy relating to franchising; Business consultancy relating to the administration of information technology; Business consultancy services relating to data processing; Business consultancy services relating to manufacturing; Business consultancy services relating to marketing; Business consultancy services relating to the supply of quality management systems; Business consultancy to firms; Business consultancy to individuals; Business consultation; Business consultation relating to advertising; Business consultation services relating to franchising; Business counselling; Business data analysis services; Business development services; Business efficiency expert services; Business efficiency studies; Business enquiries; Business evaluation services; Business examination services; Business expertise services; Business feasibility studies; Business finding services; Business franchising consultancy and business support services; Business franchising services (group purchasing, group advertising); Business information; Business information agency services; Business inquiries; Business intelligence services; Business investigations; Business management; Business management advice; Business management advisory services; Business management and administration services supporting utilisation of a global computer network; Business management and organization consultancy; Business management assistance; Business management consultancy; Business management of call centres; Business management of outsourcing; Business management of performing artists; Business management of reimbursement programmes for others; Business management of reimbursement programs for others; Business management of sports people; Business management organisation consultancy; Business merger services; Business modelling services; Business monitoring services; Business negotiation of contracts (for others); Business negotiations; Business organisation consulting; Business organization and management of discount services; Business organization consultancy; Business planning; Business planning consultancy; Business project management; Business project management services for construction projects; Business promotion services; Business records keeping; Business recruitment consultancy; Business referrals services; Business relocation services; Business representative services; Business research; Business secretarial services; Business statistical analysis; Business statistical information services; Business statistical studies; Business strategic planning; Business strategy services; Business supervision (on behalf of others); Business surveys; Call centre services being the provision of business information; Collecting business information; Collecting business statistics; Collecting information for business; Collection of statistics for business; Commercial business management; Compilation of business data; Compilation of business directories; Compilation of business information; Compilation of business statistics; Computer assisted business information; Computerised business auditing; Computerised business information retrieval; Computerised business information services; Computerised business records keeping; Computerised business research; Conducting business shows; Conducting exhibitions for business purposes; Conducting of business appraisals; Conducting of business feasibility studies; Conducting of business research; Conducting of internal business communication surveys; Consultancy relating to business acquisition; Consultancy relating to business document management; Consultancy relating to business efficiency; Consultancy relating to business management; Consultancy relating to business mergers; Consultancy relating to business organisation; Consultancy relating to business planning; Consultancy relating to business promotion; Consultancy relating to the establishment and running of businesses; Consultancy relating to the preparation of business statistics; Data base services for business; Data processing for businesses; Data processing for the collection of data for business purposes; Dissemination of business information; Economic analysis for business purposes; Economic forecasting analysis for business purposes; Economic forecasting for business purposes; Economic information services for business purposes; Efficiency or process auditing (examining, reviewing or assessing the working of a business or organization); Evaluation of business opportunities; Information services relating to businesses; Intermediary business services relating to the commercialisation of goods; Intermediary business services relating to the commercialising of goods (wholesaling); Logistics services (business management and organization of facilities and resources); Management advisory services for businesses; Management assistance in business affairs; Management consultations relating to business; Management of business (for others); Management of business offices for others; Management of business projects (for others); Marketing and business development of inventions; Obtaining business statistics (for others); Operation of businesses (for others); Organisational services for business purposes; Organising of business competitions; Outsourcing services (business assistance); Preparation of business reports; Preparation of business statistics; Preparation of documents relating to business; Preparation of statistics (business); Processing of business survey results; Procurement services for others (purchasing goods and services for other businesses); Professional business consultancy; Project business management and administration; Project studies for businesses; Promotion (advertising) of business; Providing business information via a web site; Providing information, including online, about advertising, business management and administration and office functions; Provision of assistance (business) in the establishment of franchises; Provision of assistance (business) in the operation of franchises; Provision of business advice relating to franchising; Provision of business assistance; Provision of business bureau facilities; Provision of business data; Provision of business information; Provision of business information relating to franchising; Provision of business information relating to joint ventures; Provision of business management assistance; Provision of business management information; Provision of business statistical information; Provision of commercial and business contact information; Provision of information in relation to business administration; Provision of information in relation to business management; Provision of information relating to business; Research of business information; Research services relating to business; Risk management consultancy (business); Service to assist in establishing a network of business contacts; Strategic business consultancy; Strategic business planning; Supervision of businesses on behalf of others; Surveys for business purposes; Technology transfer services (business services); Writing of business reports; Advice relating to business management; Advice relating to business organisation; Advice relating to commercial management; Advice relating to marketing management; Advice relating to personnel management; Advice relating to the sale of businesses; Association services being the provision of business support or advice; Business advice; Business advice relating to advertising; Business advice relating to franchising; Business advice relating to marketing; Business management advice; Marketing management advice; Provision of advice relating to marketing; Business negotiation of contracts (for others); Procurement of contracts (for others); Business negotiation of contracts (for others); Business negotiations; Negotiation and conclusion of commercial transactions for third parties; Advisory services relating to customer service; Compilation of lists of prospective customers; Organisation, operation and supervision of customer loyalty schemes; Sales promotion through customer loyalty programmes (for others); Computerised compilation of customer indexes