Vifor SA v Meditech Int Pty Limited

This matter concerned an opposition by Vifor SA to the registration of a trade mark by Meditech Int Pty Limited. The opposition was brought before the Trade Marks Hearings. Vifor SA relied on grounds of opposition under sections 42, 44, and 60 of the relevant Act, though it did not pursue all grounds. Meditech Int Pty Limited, the applicant, did not actively participate in the proceedings and filed no evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether Meditech Int Pty Limited's trade mark application should be rejected based on the grounds of opposition raised by Vifor SA. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark owned by Vifor SA in respect of similar or closely related goods or services, as stipulated by section 44 of the Act. The onus was on Vifor SA to establish its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence, which consisted of a declaration by Vifor SA's Vice President. The opponent did not contend that the trade marks were substantially identical, and the Hearing Officer agreed. In assessing deceptive similarity under section 44, the Hearing Officer referred to established legal principles and authorities concerning the likelihood of deception or confusion. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer found that Vifor SA had not established the grounds of opposition it relied upon, including the ground under section 44.

As none of the grounds of opposition were established, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application by Meditech Int Pty Limited could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against Vifor SA, as costs typically follow the event.