In the second place, it would appear that an applicant may be the "author" of a trade mark, although he has deliberately copied or adopted a mark registered in a foreign country in respect of the same description of goods. In Re The Registered Trade Mark Yanx; Ex parte Amalgamated Tobacco Corporation Ltd. [2] , Williams J. said: "To try and register in Australia a word which the applicant to the knowledge of the respondent is using elsewhere on its cigarettes is sharp business practice. But it is not in itself fraudulent or a breach of the law." [3] . (I would think myself that it may or may not, according to circumstances, constitute "sharp business practice".) Again, it is otherwise if the opponent or person aggrieved has used the mark, for prior user by the foreign proprietor negatives the claim of the Australian applicant to "authorship". But the user must be user in Australia : the most extensive user by another person in foreign countries will not avail by itself to defeat an applicant for registration in this country. It has been said, however, that the Courts frown on these borrowings from abroad, and very slight evidence of user in Australia has been held sufficient to protect the proprietor of a foreign trade mark: The Seven Up Co. v. O.T. Ltd. [4] . A good example is Blackadder v. Good Roads Machinery Co. Inc. [5] . That was clearly, I think, not a case of fraud. The vital fact was that, as the Court held, the goods were to be regarded as having "come into the Australian market" bearing the trade mark "Winner". Another good example - perhaps an extreme example - is the Yanx Case [2] . But, where there has clearly been no user at all in Australia, an applicant for a trade mark identical with a mark registered in a foreign country is entitled to be regarded, so far as Australia is concerned, as the "author" of the mark. I can see no reason why this should not be so. In The Seven Up Co. v. O.T. Ltd. [6] , Williams J., after citing certain English authorities, said: "In my opinion the effect of these cases is that in the absence of fraud it is not unlawful for a trader to become the registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act of a mark which has been used, however extensively, by another trader as a mark for similar goods in a foreign country, provided the foreign mark has not been used at all in Australia at the date of the application for registration." [1] . Latham C.J. quoted this passage with approval [2] on an appeal from Williams J., which was dismissed.