Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: Use this fork when the opponent's primary or strongest ground of opposition is s 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) - that the applicant's mark is similar to a trade mark that was well-known in Australia at the priority date of the application, and the applicant's mark would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection with the opponent's business. This fork is evidence-intensive and requires extensive proof of the opponent's market reputation.
Jurisdiction: Australia - Commonwealth. Proceedings are conducted before the Registrar of Trade Marks at IP Australia. There are no further forks within this fork.
The Process at a Glance: The opposition process under s 60 begins with the standard steps of filing the Notice of Intention to Oppose and Statement of Grounds and Particulars. The critical phase is the Evidence in Support, where the opponent must establish that their mark was well-known in Australia at the applicant's priority date. Evidence gathered includes annual sales volumes in Australia, advertising expenditure for the mark over time, independent media coverage and press mentions, consumer awareness surveys or market research, social media presence and engagement metrics, and statutory declarations from the opponent's senior management, Australian distributors, or retailers. These must be in statutory declaration form - not affidavits. Evidence in Support is due within 3 months of the Notice of Intention to Defend. Failure to file is deemed to end the opposition. The applicant may then file Evidence in Answer, and the opponent files Evidence in Reply limited to rebuttal. The matter proceeds to a hearing.
Key Legislation and Case Law: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) - s 60 (opposition on the basis that the applicant's mark is similar to a well-known mark, and its use would indicate a connection with the opponent in circumstances that would be likely to damage the opponent's interests). Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) - regs 5.12-5.16 (evidence rounds in opposition proceedings). Key cases: Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 - the cause-to-wonder test: a mark is deceptively similar if it would cause a customer with an imperfect recollection to wonder whether the goods came from the same source. Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8 - reputation of the earlier mark is relevant to s 60 but is not relevant to the assessment of deceptive similarity under s 120(1) or s 44. Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 48 - the ordinary signification of a foreign word to the relevant Australian public determines whether it is a distinctive mark or a descriptive term. The s 60 ground requires the opponent to establish both that their mark was well-known and that the applicant's use would indicate a connection with the opponent's business - it is a two-limb test and evidence must go to both elements.
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Trade Mark Opposition (Opponent) - Opposition on S60 Reputation Grounds matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for IP_TRADEMARK cases, outlining the standard DISPUTE_LITIGATION process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
Develop and obtain client approval for the reputation evidence collection strategy.
Collate all commercial sales figures, advertising materials, media coverage, and consumer recognition data.
Draft, settle, execute, and witness all statutory declarations from opponent's witnesses.
File the complete Evidence in Support package with IP Australia within the statutory deadline.
Brief counsel, prepare submissions, and attend or file for the hearing.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.