Western Australian Land Authority
[2014] ATMO 10
•31 January 2014
TRADE MARKS ACT 1995
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS
Re:Trade mark application number 1511152(16, 35, 36, 37) - COCKBURN COAST THE JETTY (logo) - in the name of Western Australian Land Authority.
Delegate: | Robert Wilson |
Representation: | Applicant: David Stewart of Wrays Lawyers. |
Decision: | 2014 ATMO 10 Ex parte matter pursuant to s 33: Trade mark deceptively similar to earlier trade mark covering similar services and s 44(2) accordingly applies. Registration is refused unless application amended according to this decision. |
Background
This decision follows from an ex parte hearing held at the request of the Western Australian Land Authority (‘the Applicant’) pursuant to s 33 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (‘the Act’) in relation to an assessment made during examination that there were grounds under s 44 of the Act for rejecting the following application (‘the Application’).
Application Number:
1511152
Priority Date:
29 August 2012 (‘the Priority Date’)
Goods and Services:
See Appendix 1
Trade Mark:
(‘the Applicant’s Trade Mark’)
The Applicant trades as ‘LandCorp’ and is the Western Australian Government’s land and property developer. The services provided by the Applicant include urban development and renewal projects. Amongst the development projects being undertaken by the Applicant is the development of the former Robb Jetty industrial area and its surrounds, which, according to the Applicant, is intended to create a mix of residential, business, transport and community infrastructure. This development project is divided into three precinct areas being: The Jetty, The Hilltop and The Powerhouse. As well as the trade mark under consideration here the Applicant has successfully registered the following three trade marks which are for similar goods and services to those applied for in connection with the Applicant’s Trade Mark:
In her report dated 16 January 2013 the examiner raised two earlier trade marks as citations pursuant to s 44 of the Act. Details of the two trade marks are shown below:
Trade Mark Number:
1348824
Priority Date:
4 March 2010
Goods:
Class 6: Apartments (metallic structures or buildings)
Trade Mark:
THE JETTY (‘the First Cited Trade Mark’)
Trade Mark Number:
1391382
Priority Date:
3 November 2010
Services:
Class 43: Accommodation letting agency services (holiday apartments); rental of holiday accommodation; rental of temporary accommodation
Trade Mark:
the jetty (‘the Second Cited Trade Mark’)
The examiner indicated that the Application would be able to be accepted for possible registration if the Applicant agreed to delete Classes 36 and 37 from the Application. The examiner also indicated that the Applicant might overcome the grounds for rejection by the provision of evidence of use and/or other circumstances under s 44. Rather than respond to the examiner’s report by written submissions and/or evidence to the examiner, the Applicant requested to be heard on the matter. The matter came before a delegate of the Registrar on 8 November 2013. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by David Stewart of Wrays Lawyers who made submissions on its behalf.
Legal Framework
There are a few aspects of the law which are of particular relevance to this hearing. The examiner raised a ground for rejection pursuant to s 44 of the Act. A consideration under this section is whether the cited trade marks are deceptively similar or substantially identical to the Applicant’s Trade Mark. This section also requires a consideration of whether any of the Applicant’s services are similar or closely related to the services and/or goods of the cited trade marks. The Applicant has made submissions in respect of the foregoing, but has also made submissions that it is appropriate that the Application be accepted on the basis of ‘other circumstances’ as permitted by s 44(3)(b). Relevant law in respect of all of these is given below.
The relevant sections of the Act are reproduced below:
Section 44 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.
Note 1: For deceptively similar see section 10.
Note 2: For similar services see subsection 14(2).
Note 3: For priority date see section 12.(3) If the Registrar in either case is satisfied:
(a) that there has been honest concurrent use of the 2 trade marks; or
(b) that, because of other circumstances, it is proper to do so;the Registrar may accept the application for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark subject to any conditions or limitations that the Registrar thinks fit to impose. If the applicant’s trade mark has been used only in a particular area, the limitations may include that the use of the trade mark is to be restricted to that particular area.
Note: For limitations see section 6.
…
Section 10 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.
14 Definition of similar goods and similar services
…
(2) For the purposes of this Act, services are similar to other services:
(a) if they are the same as the other services; or
(b) if they are of the same description as that of the other services.
The tests for determining whether trade marks are substantially identical or deceptively differ. The principle authority for these tests come from the judgment of Windeyer J in Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Aust) Ltd:
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 … 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 television exhibitions.[1]
[1] (1963) 109 CLR 407, 414-15.
When considering whether the services of one trader are similar to those of another the factors to be considered must be: the nature of the services themselves; their uses; and the trade channels through which they are provided.[2]
[2] MID SydneyPty Ltd v The Australian Tourism Co Ltd [1998] FCA 185.
While the Act defines what are ‘similar services’ in s 14(2), it is silent on what constitutes closely related goods and services. Judicial consideration on this question is limited, however, French J stated in Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths (‘Woolworths Metro’) that:
The relationships may, and perhaps in most cases will, be defined by the function of the service with respect to the goods. Services which provide for the installation, operation, maintenance or repair of goods are likely to be treated as closely related to them.[3]
His Honour went on to say:
In the end there is one practical judgment to be made. Whether any resemblance between different trade marks for goods and services renders them deceptively similar will depend upon the nature and degree of that resemblance and the closeness of the relationship between the services and the goods in question.[4]
[3] [1999] FCA 1020, [38].
[4] Ibid, [40].
Section 44(3)(b) allows the acceptance of a trade mark application subject to rejection under ss 44(1) or (2), on the basis that other circumstances exist which make it proper to do so. Acceptance on this basis depends upon a consideration of the commercial realities which, in the Registrar’s opinion, justify acceptance of an application notwithstanding a real risk of deception or confusion. Bali Trade Mark (No. 2)[5] concerned, inter alia, consideration of s 12(2) of the, now repealed, Trade Marks Act 1938 (UK). That provision dealt with ‘honest concurrent use, or of other special circumstances’. ‘Special circumstances’ were considered by Fox J to be ‘special circumstances which justify taking the case out of the ordinary rules so that justice may be done to the applicant’.[6] Honesty of use is still essential for acceptance on the basis of other circumstances.
[5] [1978] FSR 193.
[6] Ibid, 221.
Discussion
The Applicant submitted that the Application should be accepted on three bases:
· Firstly, that the services claimed by the Applicant are neither similar nor closely related to the goods/services of the earlier cited trade marks.
· Secondly, that neither of the earlier cited trade marks is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s Trade Mark.
· Thirdly, that it is appropriate to accept the Application on the basis of ‘other circumstances’ pursuant to s 44(3)(b).
For the Application to be accepted it is only necessary for the Applicant to satisfy me in respect of one the above. I will discuss each of these submissions in turn.
Are the services claimed by the Applicant similar to the goods/services of the earlier cited trade marks?
In her first report the examiner considered that certain services claimed by the Applicant in Class 37 are closely related to the goods claimed by the First Cited Trade Mark. In response the Applicant has submitted that:
Goods of the nature of those provided under [the First Cited Trade Mark] are in the nature of metal building materials. It is not immediately clear what precise goods might be described as apartments (metallic structures or buildings), however by reference to the class heading for Class 6 it can be assumed that this claim relates to either pre-fabricated metal apartments or metal parts which can be assembled to build an apartment.
The services provided under [the Applicant’s Trade Mark] in class 37 are in the nature of the development of real estate. …
The goods provided under [the First Cited Trade Mark] have some connection with buildings … However, this connection relates merely to an incidental part of the services provided by the Applicant …
A consumer would not expect there to be any connection between a business that provides metal building materials and a land developer such as the Applicant … These traders operate in distinct trade channels from one another …
On the whole I agree with these of the Applicant’s submissions and I am satisfied that the goods for which the First Cited Trade Mark is registered are not the same as, nor closely related to, the Applicant’s goods in Class 37. After applying the appropriate considerations to the remaining goods and services of the Applicant and comparing them with the goods of the First Cited Trade Mark I am also satisfied that they too are not the same as or closely related to the goods of the First Cited Trade Mark. Accordingly the First Cited Trade Mark can be withdrawn as a citation in respect of the Application. It is not necessary that I further consider the First Cited Trade Mark in this decision.
With respect to the Second Cited Trade Mark the Applicant has submitted:
[A]dapting the approach set out in Jellinek’s Application (1946) 63 RPC 59, ‘similar services’ may be those that one might expect to be provided by one trader under the same trade mark, or those whose providers consider that they belong to the same trade.
Particular attention should be directed to the ‘trade channels’ through which services are provided, and to the overall character of the whole of the services (rather than incidental services).
The Applicant’s claim in Class 36 includes a number of real estate services including the following:
real estate affairs; acquisition and provision of real estate; real estate sales and leasing of real estate; real estate investment advice and services; real estate brokerage; real estate management, real estate administration, real estate advisory, consultancy and information services; real estate development and real estate project management, including financial management; the aforestated references to real estate include: land, marina, waterfront, wharfs and harbours; industry, technology, science and business parks and precincts; buildings, infrastructure and facilities; and other real estate; the aforestated services include for the purposes of: construction, maintenance, support, repair, and re-fit of ships, other marine craft and infrastructure for offshore oil and gas extraction and production; and for commercial, industrial, research, defence, naval, marine, maritime, recreational, entertainment, retail, residential, sporting, community, social, educational, training, cultural, tourism and other purposes.
The Second Cited Trade Mark is registered for services in Class 43 which are:
accommodation letting agency services (holiday apartments); rental of holiday accommodation; rental of temporary accommodation
In respect of the scope of goods and services to be considered under s 44 of the Act the Registrar’s delegate had this to say:
In an enquiry under section 44, the comparison is between the trade marks as registered or applied for, assuming a notional use of both, that is, a normal and fair use for all goods or services covered by the registration or application being considered.[7]
[7] Line 6 Inc v Apple, Inc [2009] ATMO 9, [24] (Thompson).
On the same question Mason J stated:
The question whether there is a likelihood of confusion is to be answered, not by reference to the manner in which the respondent has used its trade mark in the past, but by reference to the use to which it can properly put the trade mark.[8]
[8] Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v The Bali Company Co Inc (1973) 129 CLR 353, 362.
The services provided by the owners of the Second Cited Trade Mark are commonly provided by real estate agents; this seems to be especially so in the case of coastal holiday rentals. Similarly, the services listed in para 15 above which are claimed by the Applicant are commonly provided by, or encompass services provided by, real estate agents. Consequently, one might expect those services to be provided by one trader under the same trade mark. I am satisfied that the services claimed by the Applicant which are listed in this paragraph are services provided from similar trade channels and are therefore services which are similar to those of the Second Cited Trade Mark.
Are the earlier trade marks substantially identical, or deceptively similar?
The Applicant has submitted, and I agree, that Second Cited Trade Mark is not substantially identical to the Applicant’s Trade Mark.
The Applicant has submitted also that the Second Cited Trade Mark is not deceptively similar to the Applicant’s Trade Mark. I do not agree with this submission. The Applicant’s submissions in this regard are centred upon its assertion that the Second Cited Trade Mark comprises ‘weak trade mark material’, and that the words ‘The Jetty’ as they appear in the Applicant’s Trade Mark are unlikely to be considered as a badge of trade origin when that trade mark is considered as a whole. This assertion is based largely on the idea that ‘the term “jetty” is functional and generic’. The Applicant has averred:
[THE JETTY] describes a noteworthy feature of the coastal landscape, and is therefore attractive to traders whose services are provided from a location which features a jetty. This is particularly the case in relation to services which have a geographical connotation, such as services relating to real estate and accommodation … A cursory search of the Google search engine confirms that a number of developments and resorts across Australia include reference to a jetty in their name and trade marks.
‘Jetty’ is a term which is required by other traders in the real estate (or maritime construction) sectors, without any improper motive, to describe their goods and services.
The Applicant also pointed out that there are many jetties in Australia.
I agree with the Applicant only to a degree. While the words ‘the jetty’ are, or have become, less than highly adapted to distinguish they remain inherently adapted to distinguish the services of the Second Cited Trade Mark from those of other traders. The registration of the Second Cited Trade Mark grants it protection for the ‘the jetty’ for the services for which it is registered. There is no good reason to discount the Second Cited Trade Mark.
The Second Cited Trade Mark consists solely of the words ‘the jetty’. There is nothing else to distinguish this trade mark: no logo; no stylisation. The Applicant’s Trade Mark consists of three main elements: the watercolour device of a jetty; the words ‘COCKBURN COAST’; and the words ‘The Jetty’. The words COCKBURN COAST carry little, if any, trade mark weight as they are simply a geographical indicator referring to the coastal region proximate to the city of Cockburn. The watercolour device of a jetty serves to emphasise the words ‘The Jetty’ in the Applicant’s Trade Mark. I am not convinced by the Applicant’s assertion that the words ‘The Jetty’ are somehow of little significance in the Applicant’s Trade Mark when considered as a whole. It is likely that consumers who are familiar with the Second Cited Trade Mark are likely to be caused to wonder whether similar services, if provided in connection with the Applicant’s Trade Mark, originate from the same trade source. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Applicant’s Trade Mark is deceptively similar to the Second Cited Trade Mark.
Other Circumstances
Pursuant to s 44(3)(b) of the Act it is open to the Registrar to accept an application on the basis of ‘other circumstances’ notwithstanding that there is an earlier registered trade mark which is deceptively similar to the trade mark being applied for, where it is proper to do so. The Trade Marks Act 1955 and earlier trade marks Acts refer to either ‘special circumstances’ or ‘other special circumstances’. It seems reasonable to assume that ‘other circumstances’ would have a broader scope than ‘other special circumstances’ of the 1955 Act. ‘Special circumstances’ were considered by Lloyd-Jacobs J as ‘a fact peculiar to the applicant in relation to the subject matter of the application’.[9] The Applicant in this matter is seeking to rely on a number of ‘other circumstances’ to warrant acceptance of its Application.
[9] Holt & Co (Leeds) Ltd’s Application [1957] RPC 289, 294.
The Applicant drew my attention to Shanahan’s Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off wherein the authors stated that ‘“[o]ther circumstances” might comprise any aspect of the applicant’s use tending to minimise the risk of confusion or showing particular hardship’.[10] The Applicant has made submissions in respect of both of these.
Circumstances which tend to minimize the risk of confusion – The special nature of the Applicant’s services.
[10] Mark Davison and Ian Horak, Shanahan’s Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (Lawbook Company, 5th ed, 2012), 348.
The Applicant has submitted:
[T]he nature of the Applicant’s industry, being land development and real estate, is such that location is likely to be a dominant, or even the most dominant, consideration for consumers. By the inclusion of the phrase ‘Cockburn Coast’ in the Mark, the connection between the Mark and the very specific services offered by the Applicant under [the Applicant’s Trade Mark], being all in relation to the Cockburn Coast development area, is made in the minds of the public.
If a consumer is looking to buy property in Perth, and they encounter [the Applicant’s Trade Mark], they will upon further enquiry become aware that the development at The Jetty precinct within the Cockburn Coast development area, is managed by the Applicant. However, if that same consumer was then to come across another mark incorporating the phrase ‘THE JETTY’ being used in relation to a different kind of development in a location other than the Cockburn/Fremantle coastline in Western Australia, then it is very unlikely that the consumer could be confused.
Even if a consumer was unaware of the Cockburn coast development area, it is likely that a consumer of real estate services would be aware that Cockburn is a city in Western Australia.
This is because location is integral to the decision to purchase land and acquire the Applicant’s services.
I am not convinced by these arguments. Regardless of where the current owner of the Second Cited Trade Mark may be currently carrying on its business, the registration of their trade mark grants them the right to use it in any geographical location in Australia. There is nothing to prevent them, if they so wished, from offering their services in connection with the Second Cited Trade Mark at the Cockburn Coast. In this situation the Cockburn Coast element of the Applicant’s Trade Mark, as the geographical indicator it is, would do little, if anything, to minimise confusion.
Circumstances which tend to minimise the risk of confusion – the context of The Applicant’s Trade Mark within the Applicant’s overall branding strategy for the Cockburn Coast development.
As shown at para 2 above, the Applicant has three registered trade marks which are of a somewhat similar design to the Applicant’s Trade Mark. The Applicant has submitted:
Each of these marks operate in concert as a form of brand extension. Consumers who view [the Applicant’s Trade Mark] in the context of its use alongside these trade marks will be likely to place greater emphasis upon the elements of the Mark other than the words ‘THE JETTY’, as these other elements are repeated across the series of trade marks developed for the Cockburn Coast development.
The Applicant submits that this means that the risk (if any) of confusion between [the Applicant’s Trade Mark] and [the Second Cited Trade Mark] is even lower in practice.
I am also unconvinced by this argument. It seems to me that the Applicant is understating the importance of the words ‘The Jetty’ in the Applicant’s Trade Mark. It seems reasonable to accept that once established the various Cockburn Coast trade marks are likely to be seen as belonging to the same owner. A consumer familiar with one or other of them is likely to assume upon seeing The Applicant’s Trade Mark that it is part of the family of trade marks. These same consumers are likely to differentiate between these marks by recognition of, and/or reference to the various obvious differences between them: ‘The Jetty’; ‘The Powerhouse’; ‘The Hilltop’ etc. Because of the similarity between the trade marks, the ‘The Jetty’ element of the Applicant’s Trade Mark takes on an increased significance. It is the most likely way that the trade marks will be differentiated from one another. That the Applicant’s Trade Mark is part of the overall branding strategy for the Cockburn Coast development is, in my view, unlikely to minimise the risk of confusion.
Showing particular hardship - inconvenience to the Applicant
The Applicant has submitted that:
[The Applicant] will be caused undue hardship should it be unable to register a trade mark that incorporates the words ‘The Jetty’, as this is the name which has been developed for the precinct at the site of the Robb Jetty in the Cockburn Coast development area.
Furthermore, the Applicant is an independent government body with carefully allocated resources. In the event that the Applicant is unable to register [the Applicant’s Trade Mark] it will have to allocate further funding to this project which will affect its resources for developing and protecting further trade marks related to its operations.
It seems to me to be unlikely that the drafters of the Act intended the Registrar to permit the registration of deceptively similar trade marks, thereby eroding the rights of the owner of a registered trade mark, on the basis of hardship arising out of a failure by applicants to ensure as far as possible that they are likely to be able to register a particular trade mark before investing significant resources in it. It is possible at the very early stages of trade mark development that potential trade marks can be applied for and, if necessary, their examination expedited. This is a fairly straightforward procedure which can avoid significant hardship for an applicant. A failure to carry out such procedures or a decision to proceed with the investment of significant funds in the face of an adverse examination report does not warrant the exercise of the Registrar’s discretion on the basis of hardship. In my view, the potential hardship sufferable by the Applicant in this instance does not warrant acceptance on the basis of other circumstances pursuant to s 44(3)(b).
Orthological issues
Under the heading of ‘Orthological Issues’ the Applicant has discussed, at length, issues surrounding toponyms (place names). The thrust of these submissions seems to be summed up in the words the Applicant has quoted from Landgate’s[11] policy, being: ‘Duplicated names may lead to confusion for the public and to emergency services providers’.[12] The Applicant has averred that to prevent such confusion it ought to be given, by allowing registration of its trade mark, a monopoly over the place name of its development. That this is an ‘other circumstance’ which would warrant acceptance of the Applicant’s Trade Mark under s 44(3)(b) of the Act is an argument with little merit. The function of the registration of trade marks has never been to ensure that place names are unique and thereby avoid the type of confusion contemplated by Landgate.
[11] Landgate is Western Australia’s primary source of land information.
[12] Landgate – Geographical Names Committee, Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia [5.3] >
I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to register the Applicant’s Trade Mark on the basis of ‘other circumstances’ pursuant to s 44(3)(b).
Conclusion
I am satisfied that the Second Cited Trade Mark, number 1391382, is deceptively similar to the Applicant’s Trade Mark, and that its services in Class 36 are similar to some of the services claimed by the Applicant in the same class. Accordingly, the provisions of s 44(2) are met. Additionally, in my opinion, it is not proper to accept the Application under s 44(3)(b).
I refuse to register the Applicant’s Trade Mark in respect of the specification of goods and services as it now stands.
However, the Application may proceed to registration in one month if, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Applicant requests in writing the deletion of all of its claimed services in Class 36 with the exception of:
financial sponsorship of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities
If so amended, the Application may then proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision.
If the Registrar has been served with a notice of appeal within four weeks of the date of this decision, I direct that registration shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued and that the disposition of the Application be in accordance with the Court’s order or direction.
Robert Wilson
Hearing Officer
Trade Marks Hearings
31 January 2014
Appendix 1 – the Applicant’s Goods and Services
Class: 16 Printed matter; published works in the form of printed matter; company magazines; periodical magazines; newsletters; printed publications; promotional publications; pamphlets; maps, posters and wall calendars; stationery
Class: 35 Business project management in relation to real estate use; the aforestated references to real estate include: land, marina, waterfront, wharfs and harbours; industry, technology, science and business parks and precincts; buildings, infrastructure and facilities; and other real estate; the aforestated services include for the purposes of: construction, maintenance, support, repair, and re-fit of ships, other marine craft and infrastructure for offshore oil and gas extraction and production; and for commercial, industrial, research, defence, naval, marine, maritime, recreational, entertainment, retail, residential, sporting, community, social, educational, training, cultural, tourism and other purposes; organising and conducting expositions, exhibitions, conferences, seminars, workshops and trade fairs for commercial and advertising purposes; publicity; business management assistance, including pooled resource and leveraged purchasing facilitation, business networking facilitation
Class: 36 Real estate affairs; acquisition and provision of real estate; real estate evaluations, real estate sales and leasing of real estate; real estate investment advice and services, real estate brokerage and real estate asset development; real estate management, real estate administration, real estate advisory, consultancy and information services, real estate development and real estate project management, including financial management; the aforestated references to real estate include: land, marina, waterfront, wharfs and harbours; industry, technology, science and business parks and precincts; buildings, infrastructure and facilities; and other real estate; the aforestated services include for the purposes of: construction, maintenance, support, repair, and re-fit of ships, other marine craft and infrastructure for offshore oil and gas extraction and production; and for commercial, industrial, research, defence, naval, marine, maritime, recreational, entertainment, retail, residential, sporting, community, social, educational, training, cultural, tourism and other purposes; financial sponsorship of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities
Class: 37 Development of real estate; re-development and renewal of real estate; development and construction of infrastructure in relation to real estate; project management services in relation to real estate, being building and infrastructure project management services, being building and infrastructure construction supervision; the aforestated services include for the purposes of: construction, maintenance, support, repair, and re-fit of ships, other marine craft and infrastructure for offshore oil and gas extraction and production; and for commercial, industrial, research, defence, naval, marine, maritime, recreational, entertainment, retail, residential, sporting, community, social, educational, training, cultural, tourism and other purposes; maintenance, repair, cleaning and security services (being installation, maintenance and repair of security systems and devices) in relation to real estate and infrastructure; the aforestated references to real estate include: land, marina, waterfront, wharfs and harbours; industry, technology, science and business parks and precincts; buildings, infrastructure and facilities; and other real estate; the aforestated references to infrastructure include communication facilities and networks, access and links to communication facilities and networks, and other infrastructure
(‘the Applicant’s Goods and Services’)
3
0