The Applicant's pattern of filing multiple trade marks, including several that have lapsed or been opposed, suggests a deliberate strategy of misappropriating trade marks across different classes and industries rather than genuine commercial use. This repeated pattern of filings, failure to defend oppositions, and lapses suggests that the Applicant is not engaging in legitimate brand creation but is instead registering trade marks to obstruct competitors, gain unfair leverage over existing brands, or extract value from trade mark registrations without genuine commercial intent.

For the purposes of considering the s 62A ground of opposition and determining the Applicant's subjective intention, it is necessary to look at the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Application which includes the relevant actions of each party.
Referring to the details of the Australian marks from the Australian Trade Mark Register, there is evidence that Applicant has filed trade mark applications in a range of classes and when these trade marks have been opposed, the Applicant has either not filed a NID or has been unsuccessful in an opposition, or when an adverse report is issued on these trade marks, the application has been allowed to lapse. While it is not uncommon for Applicants to allow an application to lapse when faced with an adverse report or to not participate in an opposition, here the Applicant has done this on multiple occasions in respect of trade marks which do not consist of descriptive words, well known words or obvious combinations of words such as portmanteau words, but consist of highly invented and distinctive words namely Keadic, M SANMERSEN, Rustark, GORILLA GRIP, Vmaisi and Glittery Garden. In my view, it seems a highly unlikely coincidence that the Applicant adopted and filed these unusual trade marks, including the Trade Mark, without knowledge of any of these trade marks.

(1) Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:

(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.

The Opponent has established on the balance of probabilities, the grounds of opposition under s 58 and 62A. I accordingly refuse to register the Application. If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal within one month from the date of this decision, I direct that the disposition of the Application be in accordance with the court's direction or order.

The Opponent has sought costs. I see no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. I accordingly award costs against the Applicant under s 221 in the relevant amounts under Schedule 8 of the Regulations.

[1] Unless otherwise stated, each reference to a section is a reference to a section of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ('Act') and each reference to a regulation is a reference to a regulation in the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) ('Regulations').

[2] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).

[3] Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelmann JJ).

[4] Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82, [4] (Kitto J).

[5] Chengbo Wang v Xiang Chen [2025] ATMO 191. Opposition successful under s 58.

[6] Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 56, [170] (Greenwood, Besanko and Katzmann JJ). See also PB Foods Ltd v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd [1999] FCA 1602, [78]-[80] (Carr J).

[7] Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83, [29] (Greenwood, Jagot and Beach JJ).

[9] Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 6, [48] (Nicholas, Yates and Beach JJ).

[11] Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Limited [1994] FCA 936, [62] (Gummow J).

[12] Re Hicks's Trade Mark [1897] VicLawRp 118; (1897) 22 VLR 636, 640 (Holroyd J).

[13] Settef SpA v Riv-Oland Marble Co (Vic) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 IPR 402, 413 (McGarvie J).

[16] [2012] FCA 81 (Dodds-Streeton J) ('Fry Consulting').

[17] [2013] FCA 478 (Bennett J) ('DC Comics').

[27] Hard Coffee Pty Ltd v Hard Coffee Main Beach Pty Ltd [2009] ATMO 26, [12] (Hearing Officer Nancarrow).

Marks Regulations 1995

Glittery Craft Limited v Xiang Chen [2026] ATMO 8 (13 January 2026)

Glittery Craft Limited v Xiang Chen [2026] ATMO 8

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (2)

Glittery Craft Limited v Xiang Chen [2026] ATMO 8 (13 January 2026)