Valo Therapeutics Oy

This decision concerns an application for revocation of acceptance of a trade mark application by Valo Therapeutics Oy (the applicant) against the Australian Trade Marks Office (the respondent). The dispute arose from the acceptance of the trade mark application, which the applicant sought to have revoked.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the acceptance of the trade mark application should be revoked, pursuant to section 38 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This required a determination of whether the first limb of section 38 was established, and if so, whether revocation was reasonable.

The Hearing Officer found that the first limb of section 38 was established, necessitating consideration of reasonableness. Applying the reasoning from *Henkel AG & Co KGaA* [2015] ATMO 13, the Hearing Officer determined that revocation was reasonable. This reasoning emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Office's examination processes and allowing valid grounds for rejection to be raised. The Hearing Officer concluded that it was in the best interests of both the applicant and potential opponents for the application to be returned to examination.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered the revocation of the acceptance of the trade mark application. As a result, the application is to be taken to have never been accepted and will be returned to the Registrar for examination and reporting under section 31, with sections 33 and 34 to apply accordingly.