Class 37: (including) drilling of deep gas wells

Class 39: (including) distribution and transportation of energy, including gas

Class 40: (including) gas production, processing and treatment services

Class 42: (including) engineering, design and related consulting services in relation to the exploration, production, processing, treatment, refining, supply and distribution of energy and gas

('Applicant's Goods and/or Services') [2]

1. The Applications were examined as required by s 31 and advertised for possible registration on 13 February 2024.
2. On 9 April 2024 the Opponent filed its Notices of Intention to Oppose the registrations, followed by its Statements of Grounds and Particulars ('SGPs') on 9 May 2024. The Applicant filed its Notices of Intention to Defend the oppositions on 12 June 2024.
3. Thereafter the parties filed evidence in accordance with the Regulations and filed identical evidence in respect of both oppositions. The Opponent filed the following evidence in support:
   • Declaration of Pierre Langenhoven, Director of the Opponent, made on 17 September 2024, with Annexures PL-1 to PL-45 ('Langenhoven').
     • Confidential Declaration of Paul McCormick, North Australian Livestock Manager of Customer Solutions Teams at Elders, made on 19 July 2023, with Annexure PM-1 ('McCormick').
     • Confidential Declaration of Will Evans, Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, made on 18 July 2023 ('Evans').
4. The Applicant filed the following evidence in answer:
   • Declaration of Joel Riddle, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Tamboran Resources Group, made on 22 December 2024, with Exhibits 1 to 23 ('Riddle').
5. The Opponent filed the following evidence in reply:
   • Declaration of Pierre Langenhoven, made on 20 February 2025, with Annexures PLA-1 to PLA-6.
6. Once the time for filing evidence had ended both parties were given an opportunity to either request an oral hearing or a hearing by way of written submissions. Both parties requested to the heard by way of videoconference. As a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks I heard the matter by videoconference on 18 September 2025. Melissa Marcus of Counsel instructed by Erin Cassidy of Gadens appeared on behalf of the Opponent. Andrew Fox of Senior Counsel instructed by Stuart Green and Lauren Eade of Davies Collison Cave appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The parties' oral submissions were supported by written submissions filed prior to the hearing.

1. In the SGPs the Opponent nominated grounds of opposition under ss 42(b), 43, 44, 58, 59, 60 and 62A. The Opponent did not press the ground of opposition under s 44 and I consider it abandoned.
2. The date at which the rights of the parties are to be determined is the filing date of 5 October 2022 ('Relevant Date') which is also the priority date for the purposes of s 60.
3. The Opponent bears the onus of establishing at least one of the grounds of opposition.[3] The standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard of the balance of probabilities.[4]

1. On 16 September 2025 the Opponent filed evidence out of time and requested that the additional evidence being the declaration of Pierre Longenhoven dated 16 September 2025 be taken into account pursuant to regs 5.15, 9.18 and 21.15(4).
2. The Opponent submits that it was unable to file the evidence set out in the declaration filed out of time because of the actions of Santos QNT Pty Ltd and events that had not occurred at the deadline for filing the Opponent's evidence in reply in the oppositions.
3. The Applicant objects to the evidence as it does not add to the factual matrix and post dates the Relevant Date.
4. In my opinion, the evidence filed out of time is not material to my decision. The evidence is in relation to the actions of a third party and events that occurred after the Relevant Date. Therefore, I have not had regard to the evidence filed out of time.

1. The Opponent is an Australian company with significant interests in pastoral leases in Australia. In January 2020 the Opponent purchased a cattle station property and business named Tanumbirini Station along with the Forrest Hill Station from Thames Pastoral Company Pty Ltd. The purchase of Tanumbirini Station included an interest in the Northern Territory Perpetual Pastoral Lease 01060 companying N.T. Portion 701 named TANUMBIRINI which is 5,001 square kilometers in size. A Perpetual Pastoral Lease provides the lessee with the exclusive right to conduct activity in perpetuity associated with pastoralism, including raising livestock and developing infrastructure necessary for pastoralism.

1. Founded in 2009, the Applicant is a public natural gas company that was admitted to the Australian Stock Exchange on 1 July 2021. The Applicant re-domiciled from Australia to the United States of America in December 2023. The Applicant and its subsidiaries i.e. Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd and joint venture partners hold mineral and gas exploration permits in the Beetaloo Sub-basin, which in turn is part of the Greater McArthur Basin.
2. The Applicant was originally granted an exploration permit EP 161 in 2012. The permit extends across the Opponent's property known as Tanumbirini Station. The Applicant is now a party to a joint venture agreement with Santos QNT Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Santos Ltd by which the parties are the interest holder in exploration permit EP 161. Santos QNT Pty Ltd has engaged in exploration via wells named Tanumbirini 1, Tanumbirini 2H and Tanumbirini 3H in the permit area EP 161 in Tanumbirini Station.

1. The parties are and have been involved in a number of disputes in Australia, both in respect of trade mark oppositions and in relation to the Applicant's business and the exercise by the Applicant and its subsidiary Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd of the mineral and gas exploration rights.

The registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the applicant is

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 58 as follows:

The opposed TANUMBIRINI Trade Mark is identical to the TANUMBIRINI trade mark, and substantially identical to the TANUMBIRINI STATION trade mark (which is the subject of Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION in the name of Rallen Australia Pty Ltd) that are both trade marks owned by the Opponent.

[The opposed TANUMBIRINI STATION Trade Mark is substantially identical to the TANUMBIRINI trade mark, and identical to the TANUMBIRINI STATION trade mark (which is the subject of Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION in the name of Rallen Australia Pty Ltd) that are both trade marks owned by the Opponent.]

The TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION trade marks both owned by the Opponent were first used by the Opponent's predecessors circa 1893 in relation to a cattle station and the Opponent's Goods and Services claimed by Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION and the Opponent's Trade Marks have been continuously used since that time. Accordingly, the Applicant cannot claim to be the owner of the Trade Mark and the Trade Mark should be refused registration under section 58.

1. To establish this ground, the Opponent must show use in Australia, by some person other than the Applicant, of a trade mark that is identical or substantially identical to the Trade Mark, [5] in relation to goods and/or services that are the 'same kind of thing' as the Applicant's Goods and/or Services[.] The trade mark relied on by the Opponent must have been used in the course of trade prior to the filing date, or prior to the date of first use of the Trade Mark, whichever is earlier.[7]
2. In the SGP the Opponent relies on its earlier trade mark registration as follows:

Specification: Class 31: (including) live animals; agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains

Class 42: (including) quality assessment, certification, verification and inspection of cattle to verify or certify breed type and purity

Class 43: (including) provision of hotel accommodation

Class 44: (including) livestock breeding services

1. The Opponent also relies on its unregistered trade mark TANUMBIRINI ('T Mark') in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services and operation of a cattle station.
2. The test for whether trade marks are substantially identical was set out by Windeyer J in The Shell Company Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited as follows:

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. [9]

1. More recently, the Full Federal Court considered the test for substantial identity in Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd[10] and Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd,[11] finding that the test requires that the trade marks are considered side by side while having regard to the essential features or dominant cognitive cues of the marks.
2. In the present matter I find that the Opponent's T Mark is identical to the 174 Mark and the Opponent's TS Mark is identical to the 175 Mark.
3. I do not find the Opponent's T Mark is identical or substantially identical to the 175 Mark or that the Opponent's TS Mark is identical or substantially identical to the 174 Mark. While all the trade marks share the word TANUMBIRINI, the Opponent's T Mark and 174 Mark are for the word TANUMBIRINI solus. In comparison the presence of the word STATION in the Opponent's TS Mark and the 175 Mark provides a significant different visual impression. A total impression of resemblance does not emerge from a side by side comparison.
4. Turning to the question of whether the Opponent's Goods and Services are the same kind of thing as the Applicant's Goods and Services, Hearing Officer Worth in Sola Tube Australia Pty Ltd v Gabriel Andrews stated:

The "same kind of thing" in respect of the goods or services of the parties does not equate to goods or services which may be "of the same description" (the latter being a term of art for goods or services which are not the same but which consumers are likely to believe come from the same source). It is a narrower test that applies in the context of a claim to ownership.[12]

1. In the present case, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I fail to identify any of the Opponent's Goods and Services that are the same or the same kind of thing as the Applicant's Goods and Services. The Opponent's Goods and Services are specific to the pastoral industry including accommodation services, and these products and services are different in nature and purpose to the Applicant's Goods and Services which are in relation to the mining industry.
2. Therefore, I find that the Opponent has not established the ground of opposition under s 58.

60 Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia

The registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services may be opposed on the ground that:

(a) another trade mark had, before the priority date for the registration of the first‑mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services, acquired a reputation in Australia; and

(b) because of the reputation of that other trade mark, the use of the first‑mentioned trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 60 as follows:

The Opponent's predecessors in title commenced use of the TANUMBIRINI STATION and TANUMBIRINI trade marks in Australia circa 1893 in relation to a cattle station and the Opponent's Goods and Services covered by Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION in Classes 31, 42, 43, 44 (the Opponent's Goods and Services), and the TANUMBIRINI STATION and TANUMBIRINI trade marks have been continuously used since that time. The Opponent's TANUMBIRINI trade mark is identical to the opposed trade mark TANUMBIRINI (Opposed Trade Mark) and the Opponent's TANUMBIRINI STATION trade mark is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Opposed Trade Mark.

The Opponent's TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION Trade Marks (Opponent's Trade Marks) had acquired a reputation in Australia before the priority date of the Opposed Trade Mark.

The goods and services for which the Opponent's TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION Trade Marks had acquired a reputation are covered by the Opponent's Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION in Classes 31, 42, 43, 44. The Opponent's Trade Marks have been continuously used by the Opponent and the Opponent's predecessors for an extremely long period of time since circa 1893 in relation to a cattle station and the Opponent's Goods and Services, and the Opponent's Trade Marks continue to be used by the Opponent for the Opponent's Goods and Services in Australia. As a result of the remarkably long period of use of the Opponent's Trade Marks in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services and the cattle station, the Opponent's Trade Marks are well-known in the cattle industry in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services.

Due to the substantial and valuable reputation that the Opponent's Trade Marks acquired before the priority date of the Opposed Trade Mark in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services, and due to the Opposed Trade Mark and the Opponent's Trade Marks being identical or substantially identical, use of the Opposed Trade Mark[s] for the goods and services covered by the Opposed Trade Mark application[s] would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. To satisfy s 60 the Opponent must establish that the trade marks upon which it relies had a reputation in Australia at the Relevant Date. The Opponent must then establish that because of that reputation, use of the 174 and 175 Marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
2. In McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick, Kenny J asked what is intended by the word 'reputation' in s 60. Her Honour consulted the Macquarie Dictionary and on the basis of the definition provided concluded that it was 'the recognition of the [trade mark] by the public generally'.12F9F[13]
3. Justice Kenny also referred to the decision of Hugo Boss AG v Jackson International Trading Co Kurt D Bruhl Gesellschaft MbH & Co KG, where Hearing Officer Thompson stated:

[I]t is true that the assessment of the reputation of a trade mark goes far beyond mere examination of sales or turnover of goods sold under the trade mark and contemplation of the advertising and promotional figures.

As regards a trade mark, its reputation derives both from the quantum of sales under that mark and also its esteem, or image, projected by that trade mark. The quantum of sales, advertising and promotion contributes to the 'recognition' component of the trade mark's reputation. The credit, image and values projected by a trade mark attaches to the 'esteem' component of the reputation as do the public events and other trader's marks with which [the] owner of the trade marks in question chooses to associate the trade marks via sponsorships, cross-promotions, 'contra deals' and so forth.

It follows that a trade mark used in relation to goods with comparatively low sales may have a high and strong reputation by virtue of the high credit or esteem in which it is held, or, conversely, that a trade mark which has very high sales may have a strong reputation notwithstanding the lack of esteem that attaches to it. The particular popular images, or sets of values, that attach to the trade mark are also, therefore, important parts of the reputation of the trade mark and may be as strong an associative force in the minds of the public as the association of the trade marks with the goods or services themselves.14F11F[14]

1. What constitutes a significant or substantial number of persons in the relevant market must be considered. Justice Heerey in Le Cordon Bleu BV v Cordon Bleu International Ltee provided some guidance:

What is "significant" or "substantial" will depend on the nature of the goods or services in question. For some highly specialised products, awareness among a few thousand persons, or even less, might be sufficient.F12F[15]

1. Langenhoven states that the Opponent began use of the TS and T Marks in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services following its purchase of the Tanumbirini Station property on 17 January 2020. Prior to this date, Langenhoven claims that the TS and T Marks had been used since circa 1893 by the Opponent's predecessors in relation to the cattle station and services including livestock breeding and rearing services.
2. Langenhoven annexes confidential sales figures for cattle sold under the TS Mark for the years 2021 to 2024.[16]
3. Langenhoven attests that the Opponent uses the TS Mark on multiple signs around the cattle station including at its main entrance.[17] I have reproduced an undated image of the sign located at the main entrance to the property below:[18]

1. Langenhoven declares that TS and T Marks are used on uniforms worn by the Opponent's staff and in promotional materials. I have reproduced images of these items below:[19]

1. Langenhoven states that the TS and T Marks are used on business documents as follows:[20]
   • Purchase Order issued by the Opponent under the trade marks and Tanumbirini Station to Elders for the purchase of Chaff, Maxisoy and Mitavite, dated 20 June 2020.
   • Tax invoice issued by Elders to the Opponent for delivery to Tanumbirini Station for Mitavite (horse feed) dated 31 August 2020.
   • Tax invoice issued by Neil Mansel Transport to Tanumbirini Station for delivery of equipment dated 18 June 2023.
   • An undated Quotation issued by Stocklick Trading to Tanumbirini (Thames Past) for custom made livestock supplements.

1. Langenhoven declares that the TS and T Marks are also used by the managers of the Tanumbirini Station in their email addresses and on their email signatures and annexes a copy of an email sent on 9 June 2023.[21]
2. Langenhoven states that no other individual or entity can breed, raise or produce cattle at Tanumbirini Station, and that the Northern Territory Government has the following specific requirements in regard to cattle branding, that is, all cattle have a Property Identification Code Number and must be branded with either three letter brands or new distinctive brands for purposes of identifying ownership of the cattle and horses. On 1 June 2020 the Opponent registered the three letter brand HTU for use on the Run: TAMUNBIRINI - NT Portion 701.[22] The Opponent also has registrations for two distinctive (symbol) brands and on 10 August 2020 the Opponent also registered its new distinctive brand .[23]
3. Langenhoven includes the confidential declarations of McCormick and Evans who attest to the reputation of the TS Mark in relation to high quality cattle, and for its breeding and raising services.
4. In my assessment of the evidence, I am satisfied the TS and T Marks have been used in relation to the Opponent's cattle station and livestock services. However, while the Opponent's sales figures under the TS Mark are substantial considering the short period in which it has conducted its business operations, there is no evidence provided which demonstrates these sales were under the TS Mark. Likewise the invoices annexed to Langenhoven are from third parties that supply feed and equipment to the Opponent. The Opponent has provided details of its specific branding symbols which are for use on its livestock, however this is not evidence of use of the TS and T Marks. The annexures to Langenhoven display staff uniforms and various marketing materials that use the TS and T Marks in various formats and with various taglines, although the Opponent has not provided any evidence of the numbers of employees, customers or advertising spend since the business was established in 2020. Customer awareness of the TS Mark is acknowledged by members of the established cattle industry, however there is de minimis evidence the TS and T Marks had been used by the Opponent's predecessors in title.
5. Considering the dearth of evidence provided, I find that the Opponent has not established that the TS and T Marks have a reputation in relation to any of the Opponent's Goods and Services. Even if I were to find that the TS and T Marks had acquired a limited reputation in Australia before the Relevant Date, the Opponent would have to show that in light of that reputation, use of the 174 and 175 Marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The respective trade marks are similar in that they all share the word TANUMBIRINI, yet the Opponent's Goods and Services do not have the same natures, uses or trade channels as the Applicant's Goods and Services. The respective goods and services are so utterly dissimilar that I consider it improbable that a consumer would see one of the relevant trade marks in use by the Applicant in respect of its goods and services and consider the Opponent, an operator of a cattle station, had somehow pivoted into the technically complex and capital intensive field of oil and gas drilling. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that use of the Trade Mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
6. The ground of opposition under s 60 has not been established.

42 Trade mark scandalous or its use contrary to law

An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if:

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 42(b) as follows:

The Opponent repeats the facts set out above in respect of section 60. In summary, the Opponent and its predecessors have extensively used and promoted the Opponent's Trade Marks TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION over a very long period of time in respect of the Opponent's Goods and Services since circa 1893 and continuing up until and beyond the priority date of the Opposed Trade Mark application.

As a result of, among other things, these activities, the Opponent has built up valuable goodwill and reputation associated with the Opponent's Trade Marks in relation to the Opponent's Goods and Services in Australia, now and as at the priority date of the Opposed Trade Mark.

As such, the Opponent's Trade Marks TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION are exclusively and distinctively associated with the Opponent and the Opponent's Goods and Services, such that use of the Opposed Trade Mark in Australia in relation to the applied-for goods and services would be likely to mislead or deceive as, amongst other things, it would wrongly suggest a connection in trade between the Applicant and the Opponent, or that the Applicant's goods and services are provided by or with the sponsorship or approval of the Opponent when that is not the case.

Use of the TANUMBIRINI Trade Mark by the Applicant in relation to the applied-for goods and services would be contrary to law as it would constitute misleading or deceptive conduct and the making of false statements contrary to sections 18 and/or 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, respectively, and passing off at common law.

1. The case law on s 42(b) requires the Opponent to show that use of the Trade Mark would be, rather than could or might be, contrary to law.[24] As observed by Rangiah J in Primary Health Care Limited v Commonwealth of Australia:

It is not enough for a party opposing registration to show that s 18 of the ACL [Australian Consumer Law 2010] or s 52 of the TPA [Trade Practices Act 1974] might be contravened. The opponent must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the provision would be contravened by use of the trade mark.[25]

1. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law[26] ('ACL') is concerned with misleading or deceptive conduct, while s 29 of the ACL is concerned with false and misleading representations. Case law has made it plain that s 18 of the ACL imposes a more stringent test than that for deception or confusion under s 60.[27] I have found that the Opponent has failed to establish a ground of opposition under s 60. Consequently, I find that the Opponent has also failed to establish that use of the Trade Mark would be contrary to s 18 of the ACL.
2. In relation to s 29 of the ACL it has been held that where a trade mark does not offend s 18 of the ACL, neither will it offend s 29 of the ACL[28] and nor will it constitute passing off.[29]
3. The Opponent has not established the ground of opposition under s 42(b).

43 Trade mark likely to deceive or cause confusion

An application for the registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services must be rejected if, because of some connotation that the trade mark or a sign contained in the trade mark has, the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 43 as follows:

The TANUMBIRINI trade mark has a connotation of the Opponent's well known trade marks TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION, which have been owned and used by the Opponent and its predecessors for over one hundred years for a cattle station and livestock services and the Opponent's Goods and Services. The Opposed Trade Mark TANUMBIRINI clearly connotes that the goods and services for which the Applicant seeks registration are connected or associated with the Opponent and the Opponent's Goods and Services provided under the Opponent's Trade Marks, or authorised by the Opponent when this is not true. Due to connotation that the TANUMBIRINI trade mark has, there is a real and tangible danger that use of the Opposed Trade Mark in relation to the goods and services is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

1. To establish a ground of opposition under s 43, there must be an inherent connotation within the trade mark itself. Justice Gyles in Pfizer Products Inc v Karam commented:

'Connotation' is a secondary meaning implied by the mark. The likelihood of deception or confusion must flow from the secondary meaning inherent in the mark itself. It is apparent that the underlying purpose of s 43 is a similar purpose to that lying behind ss 52, [21](https://jade.io/article/53 and [21](https://jade.io/article/55 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). It is to prevent the public being deceived or confused as to the nature of the goods offered by reason of a secondary meaning connoted by the mark in question ...[30]

1. This section requires the Opponent to demonstrate that there is a connotation in the TS and T Marks and that because of the connotation, use of the 174 and 175 Marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
2. The Opponent submits that usage of the TS and T Marks for over 100 years by the Opponent and its predecessors in title will lead to a perception, among members of the public, that any use of the TS and T Marks is associated with the Applicant. Furthermore, upon seeing the Applicant's use of the 174 and 175 Marks, members of the intended market for the Applicant's Goods and Services are likely to believe that the Opponent has sponsored or is in some way affiliated with the Applicant's Goods and Services.
3. The Applicant submits that the Opponent's argument impermissibly seeks to rely on the Opponent's alleged reputation in its TS and T Marks, which leads to the same result as for the ss 60 and 42(b) grounds.
4. I agree with the Applicant, the TS and T Marks reputation have not been established under ss 60 and 42(b). While the Opponent's TS and T Marks have been used for a cattle station and livestock services, I consider these circumstances are extrinsic the TS and T Marks themselves. As such I do not consider there is any implied or secondary meaning contained within, or inherent, to the TS and T Marks. Moreover, I do not consider the Applicant's use of the 174 and 175 Marks in relation to mining goods and services would be likely to result in deception or confusion or connote that the Applicant's Goods and Services are dealt with under the aegis or sanction of the Opponent.
5. The Opponent has not established the ground of opposition under s 43.

Section 59

1. Section 59 provides:

Section 59 - Applicant not intending to use trade mark

The registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the applicant does not intend:

(a) to use, or authorise the use of, the trade mark in Australia, or

(b) to assign the trade mark to a body corporate for use by the body corporate in Australia;

in relation to the goods and/or services specified in the application.

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 59 as follows:

The Applicant has sought registration of the Opposed Trade Mark[s] for a wide range of goods and services including goods and/or services in relation to which it has no intention to use or authorise others to use the Opposed Trade Mark[s] for.

1. The nature of the intention in s 59 was considered by Jacobson J in Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd where he stated:

In my view, the intention, or lack thereof, to which s 59 is directed, is a 'real and definite intention' of the applicant for registration, to use the mark publicly as a trade mark, although it is not necessary that the intention be immediate or within a limited time.[31]

1. There is a presumption that where an application has been filed the applicant has the requisite intention.[32] However:

[T]here is authority for the proposition that where an applicant for registration has been put on notice that its intention to use the mark was in issue, and has not responded to the opponent's evidence, a finding of lack of intention may be made.

The principle which underlies these authorities seems to me to be that the evidentiary onus shifts to the applicant for registration where an opponent makes a prima facie case of lack of intention to use the mark.[33]

1. Jacobson J also recognised the difficulty that an opponent has in establishing a ground under s 59, stating in the same case:

The subjective nature of the intention, the presumption of intention flowing from the application for registration and the onus on an opponent usually make it difficult for an opposition or an application for rectification, to succeed on this ground.[34]

1. In view of the authorities discussed above, the onus of establishing the ground of opposition pursuant to s 59 remains with the Opponent until it has established a prima facie case that on the Relevant Date the Applicant lacked the requisite intention. If the Opponent establishes a prima facie case the onus then shifts to the Applicant for rebuttal. The relevant intention requires that an applicant must have 'a real intention to use, not a mere problematic intention, not an uncertain or indeterminate possibility, but it means a resolve or settled purpose which has been reached at the time when the mark is to be registered'.[35] There must be 'a real and definite intention' to use the mark publicly as a trade mark in connection with the services applied for.[36]
2. The Opponent submits that the Applicant filed the 174 and 175 Marks for defensive purposes.[37] The Opponent argues that Riddle gives extensive evidence about why the Applicant sought registration of the 174 and 175 Marks by stating that 'Tamboran and its subsidiaries and joint venture partners were using the TANUMBIRINI mark as part of the well names ...and in other documents such as investor communications at the time the Applications were filed, and intended to use and authorise the use of the names Tanumbirini and Tanumbirini Station for the goods and services of the Applications...'. The Opponent submits that it is not the Applicant but Santos QNT Pty Ltd who named the wells and has been engaged in the exploration activities via the fracking wells on Tanumbirini Station. Moreover, the Opponent submits that the Applicant sought the registrations to 'describe their wells in the usual manner, and by reference to their location', and that is not an intention to use the 174 and 175 Marks in relation to the Applicant's Goods and Services.
3. The Opponent argues that Riddle states that as a result of demands made by the Opponent, the Applicant was concerned that the Opponent would use its registration for the TS Mark to prevent use by the Applicant or its subsidiaries or joint venture partners of the word TANUMBIRINI, including in investor communications and in the naming of the wells. The Opponent submits, Riddle states that the 174 and 175 Marks were filed 'to defend its interests including the established use of Tanumbirini well names' and that this does not evince an intention to use the 174 and 175 Marks as trade marks in relation to the Applicant's Goods and Services.
4. In response the Applicant submits that at the time of applying for the 174 and 175 Marks it was using the 174 and 175 Marks in relation to the Applicant's Goods and Services and had an intention to continue to use the 174 and 175 Marks, including through its authorised users. Riddle's evidence is that the Applicant and its subsidiaries and joint venture partners were using the 174 and 175 Marks as part of the well names and in other documents such as investor communications at the time the Applications were filed, and intended to use and authorise the use of the 174 and 175 Marks for the Applicant's Goods and Services, which are all related to gas and mineral exploration. Riddle further states '[t]o be clear, [the Applicant] filed the Applications to protect its ongoing use of the names Tanumbirini and Tanumbirini Station for its own goods and services and those of subsidiaries and joint venture partners'. Moreover, the Applicant is the owner of extensive exploration rights in the Northern Territory. The Applicant also submits there is no difficulty in using the 174 and 175 Marks on well names and on or in relation to the property locations where the Applicant's Goods and Services are sourced, produced or conducted, in the same way the Opponent relies on its TS Mark.
5. In the circumstances I am not persuaded by the Opponent's submissions. The Applicant has provided clear statements regarding its intention to use or authorise use of the trade marks, and evidence about itself, its subsidiaries and joint venture partners. The Opponent's submissions that it is not the Applicant but Santos QNT Pty Ltd who named the wells and has been engaged in the exploration activities does not change my view. Use of the 174 and 175 Marks is not limited to goods and services from a particular fracking well, rather it is an intention to use the 174 and 175 Marks in Australia in relation to the Applicant's Goods and Services. I add that it is not unusual for companies to form joint ventures to pool capital, skills and operational know how and in this case the evidence shows that while Santos QNT Pty Ltd is the operator of the EP 161 permit, Santos QNT Pty Ltd and the Applicant are joint interest holders in the permit.[38] The Applicant is an established public natural gas company with extensive exploration rights in the Northern Territory,[39] and is leveraging a significant depth of experience from its subsidiaries and joint venture partners such as Santos QNT Pty Ltd.[40]
6. In regard to the Opponent's submissions in relation to the Applicant using the 174 and 175 Marks to refer to the location of wells, and not as trade marks, I note that Tanumbirini is not a geographical location in the sense discussed by Kitto J in Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks.[41] Rather, it is the name of a privately owned cattle station,[42] and there is no reason why the well name or well location, like any other sign, cannot serve as a badge of origin.
7. I am not persuaded the Opponent has established a prima facie case that the Applicant filed the 174 and 174 Marks for defensive purposes. I am satisfied that at the Relevant Date the Applicant did have the intention to offer all its goods and services under the 174 and 175 Marks in Australia.

The registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the application was made in bad faith.

1. In the SGPs the Opponent particularises the ground of opposition under s 62A as follows:

The Applicant is a gas company that has previously been granted exploration permits for petroleum resources by the Northern Territory government on the Opponent's property TANUMBIRINI STATION which is located in the Beetaloo Sub-basin in the Northern Territory of Australia. The Applicant has a history of using the TANUMBIRINI and TANUMBIRINI STATION trade marks which are owned by the Opponent, without authorisation or licence from the Opponent, in relation to the Applicant's resource exploration wells which are located on the Opponent's property. The Applicant and the Opponent have been engaged in legal disputes over access and treatment of the Opponent's property.

The Applicant's Trade Mark Applications No's. 2305174[/2305175 have] been filed in bad faith to frustrate and waste the Opponent's time and resources, particularly as the Applicant itself has opposed the registration of the Opponent's Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION which the Opponent is clearly entitled to register.

The Applicant's grounds of opposition in its opposition against the registration of the Opponent's Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION are contradictory to its application to register Trade Mark Application No's. 2305174[/2305175] as they include:

• section 41 because the Applicant submits that the TANUMBIRINI STATION trade mark lacks the requisite inherent distinctiveness for registration;

• section 42(b) because the Applicant submits that the use of the trade mark would be contrary to law because the trade mark is inherently misleading and deceptive to consumers because the Trade Mark indicates that the claimed services originate or emanate from a specific geographic location when they could in fact originate or emanate from a different location in Australia;

• section 43 because the Applicant submits that the TANUMBIRINI STATION Trade Mark connotes that the goods and/or services for which registration is sought possess a heritage and/or originate or emanate from a specific geographic location in Australia, but the broad scope of protection sought would permit use of the Trade Mark on goods and/or services that do not in fact originate or emanate from that geographic location, and use of the Trade Mark is inherently likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Despite the grounds of opposition raised by the Applicant against the registration of the Opponent's Trade Mark Application No. 2254660 TANUMBIRINI STATION set out above, the Applicant has still filed its own Trade Mark Application No's. 2305174[/2305175] plainly in bad faith.

As a result of the Applicant filing Trade Mark Application No's. 2305174[/2305175] in bad faith, this application should be refused registration.

1. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth) provided some illustrations of applications made in bad faith:
   • persons who monitor new property developments, register the name of new developments as trade marks for a number of services and then threaten the property developers with trade mark infringement proceedings unless the developers licence or buy the trade marks;
   • persons who have a history of applying for trade marks that are deliberate misspellings of other registered trade marks; and
   • persons who identify trade marks used overseas but with no Australian use as yet who then apply to register the trade marks in Australia for the express purpose of selling them to the overseas owners.
2. These illustrations are not exhaustive. In DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd, Bennett J observed that all of the circumstances surrounding the application to register a trade mark are relevant.[43] Moreover, conduct after the priority date can be used to shed light on the Applicant's subjective intent at the filing date.[44]
3. The test for bad faith incorporates subjective and objective elements. That is, I must consider what the Applicant actually knew at the filing date, and then consider whether, armed with that knowledge, its decision to apply to register the Trade Mark would be considered to be in bad faith by persons who adopt proper standards of behaviour in business. In Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) ('Fry')[45] Dodds-Streeton J made the following comments, quoting from Harrisons's Trade Mark Application:

Clearly the court, when considering bad faith, cannot apply a purely subjective test, called by Lord Hutton "the Robin Hood test". The dishonest person or one with low standards cannot be permitted to obtain trade mark registrations in circumstances where a person abiding by a reasonable standard would not. The registration of a trade mark is designed to enable bona fide proprietors to protect their proprietary rights without having to prove unfair trading. Registration is not provided to help those with low moral standards.

... The words "bad faith" suggest a mental state. Clearly when considering the question of whether an application to register is made in bad faith all the circumstances will be relevant. However the court must decide whether the knowledge of the applicant was such that his decision to apply for registration would be regarded as in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards.[46]

1. Her Honour continued later in the same decision:

The formulation in United Kingdom authority of bad faith as falling short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons in a particular area is, in my view, an apt touchstone. An overly literal application may, however, tend to negate the relevance attributed to the applicant's mental state in the combined test preferred in Harrison.

Further, in my view, mere negligence, incompetence or a lack of prudence to reasonable and experienced standards would not, in themselves, suffice, as the concept of bad faith imports conduct which, irrespective of the form it takes, is of an unscrupulous, underhand, or unconscientious character.[47]

1. The onus is on the Opponent to establish that the act of filing the Application was in bad faith. While the standard of proof remains the same, given the serious nature of the allegation cogent evidence is required in order to prove it.[48]
2. The Opponent submits that it is clear from the evidence that outside the confines of this trade mark opposition, there is a real and tangible dispute between the parties. The Opponent submits that the Applicant's witness Joal Riddle gave evidence about proceedings against the Applicant's subsidiary Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd in Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding access to the property and the subsequent Supreme Court appeal by Applicant. Riddle also gave evidence about the Opponent's opposition to the Applicant's use of photos of signage on the Opponent's property depicting the name TANUMBIRINI STATION and associated cattle branding.[49] In addition the Opponent and a number of other third parties such as traditional owners, other pastoralists, scientist and experts have significant environmental and ethical concerns in relation to fracking and drilling for gas on its property and in the Beetaloo Basin.[50]
3. The Opponent highlights Riddle's evidence about the Applicant's motivations in filing the 174 and 175 Marks and his statement 'to defend its interests including the established use of the Tanumbirini well names'. The Opponent argues that given the vastly different activities engaged in by the Applicant, it is difficult to see how the Applicant's actions would fall foul of the Opponent's trade mark registration for the TS Mark. Moreover, the Applicant is a sophisticated multinational corporation that is well advised. In such circumstances, the Opponent considers Riddle's comments defy belief.
4. The Opponent submits Riddle's comments make plain that the Applicant's desire to register the 174 and 175 Marks for defensive purposes is repugnant to the purposes for which the statutory regime exists. The Opponent argues that there is much to be said for Langenhoven's evidence that the Applicant's motivation in filing the 174 and 175 Marks was, among other things, to frustrate and waste the Opponent's time and resources. For the Opponent this is particularly plain in light of the history of dealings between the parties.
5. In response the Applicant submits that the evidence of Langenhoven demonstrates that the Opponent is a passionate and active opponent of the Applicant's gas-industry activities. The Opponent is a large and well-funded commercial organisation seeking to profit from its activities on a pastoral lease, and the Applicant can understand why the Opponent may prefer if the Applicant was not operating on the same land.
6. The Applicant submits that it filed the Applications in response to its legitimate use of those marks being challenged. It sought to protect its use of the 174 and 175 Marks by seeking registration. The Applicant submits that this is not conduct falling short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons. These are the actions of a commercially astute Applicant. The Applicant's conduct, in seeking to register the 174 and 175 Marks with respect to its "vastly different activities", was entirely rational, and prudent, given the extent of animosity directed at its business operations by the Opponent. Properly and fairly understood in context, the Applicant submits that its conduct was plainly not fraudulent, dishonest or possessing a quality which 'makes it repugnant to the purposes for which the statutory regime exists'. Given the commercially significant nature of the Applicant's investments being made in mining operations in Australia, the Applicant's conduct in seeking trade mark registrations for the 174 and 175 Marks would be viewed by other traders and relevant consumers (which includes investors) as necessary and entirely proper.
7. I am not persuaded by the Opponent's submissions. The relationship between the parties is sour due to factors related to the Opponent's pastoral lease including access and environmental concerns. However, the evidence does not establish that the Opponent is engaged in mining activities or that the filing of the Applications were made to frustrate and waste the Opponent's time and resources. Any rights afforded to the Applicant upon registration are only those provided for in the Act and the Applicant has substantial investments in mining activities in Australia. In the circumstances, I do not consider it unreasonable that the Applicant would proceed with the Applications despite having knowledge of the Opponent and its trade marks.
8. Overall, the evidence before me does not establish that at the time of filing the Applications the Applicant's conduct fell short of standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced persons. In the absence of such evidence, I am not satisfied that the Applications were made in bad faith.
9. The Opponent has not established the ground of opposition under s 62A.

(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.

1. The Opponent has not established a ground of opposition in relation to the Applications. Accordingly, trade mark numbers 2305174 and 2305175 may proceed to registration one month from the date of this decision. If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal, I direct that the disposition of the Applications should be in accordance with the Court's order or direction.

1. Both parties sought an award of costs. It is usual for costs to follow the event, and I see no reason to depart from that principle here. I award costs in respect of trade mark number 2305174 against the Opponent under s 221 in line with Schedule 8 of the Regulations. In respect of trade mark number 2305175 I award reduced costs against the Opponent in the same manner as indicated in Hume Industries (Malaysia) Berhad v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd.[51]

Class 4: Natural gas; liquefied natural gas; petroleum gas; liquid petroleum gas; liquefied gas; oil-gas; hydrocarbon gas for use as fuel; compressed natural gas; coal bed gas; gas hydrates for use as fuel; shale gas; coal seam gas; natural gas condensates for use as fuel; liquefied natural gas; liquefied coal seam gas; hydrocarbon products being butane or propane or any other hydrocarbon gas or hydrocarbon fuel, all being for use as fuel

Class 35: Administration of oil and gas leases; business management and administrative services related to the operation of gas field installations; wholesaling and retailing of goods including those for fuel supply and energy products; wholesaling and retailing of energy and fuel; Wholesale and retail services in relation to energy and fuel supply systems and infrastructure; administrative and business management services related to the processing of gas to the distribution of gas; advertising services; promotion services; business management and business consultancy services; business project management services; business management consultancy services in relation to the provision of energy products including the provision of gas; business administration and business consulting services; office functions; marketing of exploration and field development services in the gas industry; information, support, assistance, consultancy and advisory services in relation to the aforementioned services

Class 37: Drilling; gas drilling; drilling of wells; rock drilling; boring of wells; drilling of deep gas wells; hydraulic fracturing services; fracking services; hydraulic fracturing services; gas well pumping; gas extraction services; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services; building, installation, construction, maintenance, repair, supervision and bringing into operation of gas wells and gas fields; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services relating to drilling and servicing of gas wells, gas infrastructure, machinery, plumbing, roads and access tracks; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services relating to the supply and distribution of gas; building, installation, construction, maintenance, rental and repair services in relation to plant, apparatus, tools and equipment used in the production, generation, distribution, transportation and supply of gas; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services in relation to gas pipelines; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services in relation to gas products, gas production, gas storage and gas supply equipment and systems; building, installation, construction, maintenance, and repair services in relation to gas supply components; civil engineering (construction) services; mechanical engineering services (construction); civil construction services; underground civil construction and engineering (construction) services; building construction services including building construction supervision and project management services; information, support, assistance, consultancy and advisory services in relation to the aforementioned services

Class 39: Distribution and transportation of energy, including gas; supply of energy, including gas; gas reticulation services; gas distribution services; gas storage services; gas supplying; transportation, storage and delivery of natural gas liquids, natural gas and liquefied natural gas; information, support, assistance, consultancy and advisory services in relation to the aforementioned services

Class 40: Gas production, processing and treatment services; hydrocarbon production, processing and treatment services; natural gas production, processing and treatment services; natural gas liquid production, processing and treatment services; liquid natural gas production, processing and treatment services; coal seam gas production, processing and treatment services; petroleum gas production, processing and treatment services; liquid petroleum gas production, processing and treatment services; liquefied gas production, processing and treatment services; oil-gas production, processing and treatment services; hydrocarbon gas production, processing and treatment services; compressed natural gas production, processing and treatment services; coal bed gas production, processing and treatment services; gas hydrates production, processing and treatment services; shale gas production, processing and treatment services; coal seam gas production, processing and treatment services; natural gas condensates production, processing and treatment services; liquefied natural gas production, processing and treatment services; liquefied coal seam gas production, processing and treatment services; refining of gas; gas well treatment services; production and generation of energy; production and generation of gas; treatment of materials; processing and conversion of fuels and energy; technical advice in the fields of production and processing of gas; technical advice related to the manufacture of gas production equipment, control systems, and machinery; information, support, assistance, consultancy and advisory services in relation to the aforementioned services

Class 42: Engineering, design and related consulting services in relation to the exploration, production, processing, treatment, refining, supply and distribution of energy and gas; gas exploration and prospecting services; surveying and exploration services; analysis for gas exploration services; gas field surveys; gas well testing; gas well services, namely, monitoring hydraulic fracture data in gas wells; testing and analysis services for the safety of energy products and energy systems; advice on the consumption and conservation of energy; analysis for exploitation of gas; analysis for gas-field exploitation; gas prospecting, planning and design services related to building of gas wells, fields and infrastructure; hydrocarbon exploration; geophysical exploration for gas; analysis services in the field of geophysics, namely, conducting feasibility studies to study fluid flow in gas reservoirs; analysis services in the field of geophysics, namely, analysis of gas fields; gas well flow testing services; in-line testing of gas wells; drill stem testing; design of gas well and gas field surveys; geo-seismic survey services; well bore surveying services; geological surveys and research; geophysical exploration services; geophysical exploration for gas; geological prospecting; geological estimation and research; geological exploration; recordal of seismic data; gravimetric monitoring services; provision of scientific surveys; provision of technical surveys; scientific and technological services and research and design services relating to the exploration, production, processing, treatment, refining, supply and distribution of energy and gas; industrial analysis and research services relating to the exploration, production, processing, treatment, refining, supply and distribution of energy and gas; information, support, assistance, consultancy and advisory services in relation to the aforementioned services

Class 31: Live animals; beef cattle; livestock including cattle; agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains; prepared foodstuffs for livestock; foodstuffs for animals and livestock; stockfeed; animal and livestock fattening preparations; straw forage; protein for animal consumption

Class 42: Quality assessment, certification, verification and inspection of cattle to verify or certify breed type and purity; scientific research services in the field of agriculture and horticulture; scientific research relating to genetics; veterinary, agricultural and agribusiness services in this class, namely progeny testing, sire proving, semen processing, analysing, screening and profiling genetics, animal selection and animal genetics

Class 43: Food and drink catering; hospitality services (food and drink); preparation of food and drink; providing food and drink; restaurant services; rental of rooms for social functions; hospitality services (accommodation); arranging hotel accommodation; booking of hotel accommodation; provision of hotel accommodation; reservation of hotel accommodation; arranging of temporary accommodation; providing information, including online, about services for providing food and drink, and temporary accommodation; providing temporary accommodation; hotel accommodation services; holiday camp services; holiday lodgings

Class 44: Livestock breeding services; livestock rearing and producing services; breeding of animals; rearing and fattening cattle; animal semen extraction; farming services; tracing services relating to the origin of meat, poultry, beef; genetic testing for medical purposes; veterinary, agricultural and agribusiness services in this class, namely insemination services, breeding and artificial breeding; provision of information, advisory and consultancy services in relation to the aforementioned services

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

[2] See Annexure 1 for the full specification. The specification is the same for both Applications.

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

[4] Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).

[5] Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v Sitmar Cruises Limited [1994] FCA 68, [62] (Gummow J).

[[.]](https://jade<a name=) [1897] VicLawRp 118; (1897) 22 VLR 636, 640 (Holroyd J).

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

[8] See Annexure 2 for the full specification.

[9] [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407, 415.

[10] [2017] FCAFC 56 (Greenwood, Besanko and Katzmann JJ).

[11] [2017] FCAFC 83 (Greenwood, Jagot, and Beach JJ).

[12] [2014] ATMO 103, [14].

[13] [2000] FCA 1335, [81].

[14] [1999] ATMO 23; (1999) 47 IPR 423, 436.

[15] [2000] FCA 1587, [91], (albeit in relation to paragraph 28(a) of the now superseded Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth)), (emphasis in original).

[16] Langenhoven, Confidential Annexure PL-25.

[20] Langenhoven [58], Annexure PL-22.

[21] Langenhoven [54] to [56], Annexure PL-20.

[22] Langenhoven, [46] Annexure PL-14.

[23] Langenhoven, [46] Annexure PL-14.

[24] Advantage Rent a Car Inc v Advantage Car Rental Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 683, [28] (Madgwick J).

[25] [2017] FCAFC 174, [411].

[26] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2.

[27] Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44; (1982) 149 CLR 191, 198. This case was decided under the superseded s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ('TPA') the equivalent provision to the current s 18 of the ACL.

[28] In Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v IPC Media Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 104, Beaumont J considered - in connection with the superseded TPA - that 'the Court's conclusion on section 52 would necessarily carry with it a conclusion on section 53 - (c) and (d).' Sections 53(c)-(d) of the TPA are the equivalent provisions to ss 29(1)(g)-(h) of the ACL.

[29] Re Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1989] FCA 506, [40] (Hill J), wherein failure to succeed under ss 52 or 53 of the TPA 'will invariably mean that proceedings for passing off would likewise fail'.

[30] [2006] FCA 1663, [53].

[31] [2008] FCA 100; [2008] 75 IPR 478, [160].

[32] Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co [1960] HCA 47; (1960) 103 CLR 391, 401 (Fullagar J).

[33] Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 100, [162]-[163] (citations omitted).

[35] Re Ducker's Trade Mark (1928) 45 RPC 397, 402.

[36] Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 100, [160] (Jacobson J).

[37] See Suyen Corporation v Americana International Limited [2010] FCA 638 [212] (Dodds-Streeton J).

[41] [1964] HCA 55; (1964) 111 CLR 511, 514.

[42] See Tamboran Resources Limited v Rallen Australia Pty Ltd [2024] ATMO 193 [27] (Hearing Officer Wilson).

[43] [2013] FCA 478, [62].

[45] [2012] FCA 81.

[46] Harrison's Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1028, [24]-[26].

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

[49] See paragraph 37 for image of the signage.

[50] Langenhoven [87], Annexure PL-38.

[51] [2001] ATMO 78 (Hearing Officer Williams).