Objection by Kellogg Company

The Applicants argued that although the 4 oppositions were heard together they were filed at different times, in 1999, 2000 and 2001 and that they prepared a different submission for each class of opposition. They argued that therefore they should be entitled to the cost of preparing and attendance for each opposition. The Applicants claims for disbursements (excluding filing fees) in the 4 oppositions were as follows, class 28: $5,328.97, class 21: $1,025, class 25: $844 and class 16: $1,652. The Applicants argued that a lot of research was done for the oppositions and that although the research was done for all 4 oppositions, the research was charged to 1 file, namely, the opposition in class 28. The Registrar requested that the Applicants justify their claim for disbursements by writing to the Registrar after the costs hearing. The Applicants wrote to the Registrar 2 weeks later, stating that there was an error in their claim for disbursements. They said that the amounts claimed as disbursements should be as follows, class 28: $5211.05, class 21: $385.08, class 25: $1,589.36 and class 16 : $1575.09.

Decision
The 4 oppositions were heard on the same day, therefore the Applicants are entitled to the cost of attendance at a hearing for one day. However with respect to preparation for the hearing, the Applicants are entitled to costs in each opposition albeit on a reducing scale. With respect to disbursements, the Registrar will usually allow photocopying charges at a rate of $0.15 cents per page in the relevant documents namely, pleadings, statutory declarations, written submissions and bundles of authorities. However the Applicants did not elaborate on their claim for photocopying by stating the number of pages in the relevant documents. Neither did they produce supporting documents for the remainder of their claims like postage, telephone calls, courier, search charges over the internet and fax. Even after they claimed these items, they still claimed for items like printing, outgoing mail, transport and incidentals. When asked to justify their claim, the applicants responded by stating that their original claims were in error and stated different amounts to be claimed for each class which were quite different from the original amounts claimed. Further in the opposition in class 21, they claimed the filing fee paid to register the change of their office address with IPOS. This is not a cost the Opponents should incur for having opposed their application in that class. The Registrar will therefore not award the claims for searches over the internet, printing, outgoing mail, transport and incidentals and award only postage, telephone calls, courier, photocopying and facsimile charges as disbursements.

• Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2005, Rule 73

• Ms Low Pei Lin (Allen & Gledhill) for the Applicants
• Mr P Sivakumar (Joseph Lopez & Co) for the Opponents