Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The importance of providing sufficient evidence in invalidation proceedings

Sponsored by


A recent trademark decision by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) reveals the importance of submitting reliable and probative evidence in invalidation proceedings, even when the invalidation proceedings are undefended by the trademark owner.

The decision confirms that IPONZ regards trademark registrations as important property rights that will not be invalidated unless the applicant makes out a true prima facie case for invalidity.

Case summary


Cong Ty Co Phan Dau Tu Trung Nguyen (the applicant) applied to invalidate trademark registration 1067280 (G7 logo) in the name of Le Hoang Diep Thao (the registered owner) on the grounds that the applicant was the first user and lawful owner of the G7 logo and that the following applied:

  • Use of the G7 logo would be likely to deceive or confuse given the applicant’s common law rights in the G7 logo.

  • The registered owner’s use of the G7 logo is contrary to New Zealand law because it would constitute passing off and would amount to a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

  • The applicant is the true owner of the G7 logo and the registered owner is not entitled to claim to be the owner of the logo.

  • The registered owner applied for registration of the G7 logo in bad faith.

The registered owner did not defend the registration. The assistant commissioner (AC) held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of invalidity of the G7 logo on any of the grounds claimed. Thus, the application for a declaration of invalidity was refused.

Evidence submitted by the applicant

To support its application for invalidity, the applicant provided as evidence:

  • printouts of website pages for (allegedly the applicant’s New Zealand website);

  • representations of packaging containing some form of the stylised G7 logo;

  • seven customer comments relating to its coffee products;

  • references to a physical delivery address for coffee in Te Awamutu; and

  • references to New Zealand telephone numbers.

Evidence not sufficiently reliable or probative

The AC held that the evidence provided did not make out a prima facie case for invalidity and identified the following main evidentiary issues:

  • According to the applicant, was the website of its New Zealand distributor. However, the distributor was not named, and the applicant provided no evidence of any agreement between itself and

  • The applicant did not submit evidence regarding consumer awareness of

  • It is not clear whether the products on were those of the applicant, the registered owner, or a third party.

  • The applicant did not submit any invoices, receipts, sales numbers, advertising spend, number of visitors to the website or other evidence on which the inference of reputation for the G7 logo mark could be made.

  • Although the applicant provided evidence of online customer comments, the comments did not make direct reference to the G7 logo.

  • The statutory declaration did not include a statement that the declarant had personal knowledge of the matters being declared and so had no probative weight.

The AC found that the applicant had not met the onus of establishing a reasonable prima facie case for any of the grounds of invalidity and dismissed the application.

This case reveals the importance of submitting reliable and probative evidence in invalidation proceedings and may serve as a guideline for the type of evidence that will be considered persuasive by IPONZ.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Online storytelling platform Humans of Bombay isn’t wrong for trying to protect its copyright, but it could have handled its dispute better
We have started accepting submissions from in-house counsel and teams for the 19th annual Managing IP Awards programme
Patient groups and generics makers may have to bear the brunt of India’s latest attempt at patent reform
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
Paolo Tavolato, who will share the role, said private equity support would help the IP consultancy achieve its ambitious M&A plans
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has hired former Anand & Anand partner Swati Sharma and hopes to compete with specialist IP firms
Rapporteur-Judge András Kupecz ruled that education and training weren’t legitimate reasons for a member of the public to access documents
Searches for comparison prior art will be a little easier, but practitioners will have to put more thought into claim construction and design patent titles
The Helsinki local division rejected AIM Sport’s request for a preliminary injunction in a dispute with rival Supponor
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP