47 Applications and a Recognisable Pattern: SCAIKTIG Bad Faith Opposition Succeeds

47 Applications and a Recognisable Pattern: SCAIKTIG Bad Faith Opposition Succeeds

There's a kind of trade mark squatting that's become increasingly visible in Australian IP proceedings: an applicant files dozens of applications for invented, distinctive marks — marks that happen to correspond to overseas brands whose owners haven't yet registered in Australia. No use is made of these marks. No business is conducted. The filing itself is the point. The SCAIKTIG case is the latest example of how this strategy is identified and shut down.

Background: The SCAIKTIG Brand

Shenzhen Ailile Network Technology Co., Ltd has been selling SCAIKTIG-branded scissors on Amazon Australia since April 2021. SCAIKTIG is a completely invented word — it carries no dictionary meaning and functions purely as a distinctive brand identifier. Ailile has registered SCAIKTIG as a trade mark in China (2023) and the United States (2022), and its Amazon Australia presence shows documented sales to Australian customers.

In March 2025, Xiaodan Zhang filed an application to register SCAIKTIG in Australia for Class 8 goods — which specifically includes scissors, knives, and cutting tools. Ailile opposed on the ground of bad faith under section 62A of the Trade Marks Act 1995.

The Pattern: 47 Applications, None Explained

Ailile's opposition evidence focused not just on Ailile's own prior use of SCAIKTIG, but on Zhang's broader filing history in Australia. The picture that emerged was damning.

Zhang had filed 47 trade mark applications in Australia during 2024 and 2025. A detailed analysis of those applications revealed a consistent pattern: the marks were invented, distinctive words — the kind that have no generic meaning — and they corresponded to marks already being used by other unrelated overseas traders for the same categories of goods.

The delegate, Anne Makrigiorgos, examined the list: VOVOU, UNEKEZ, Callstel, DAGONGREN, BHOWISK, KEEYGO, ALIUXILUO, MCUY, DOSET, SENGHUI, FULINJOY, POGEPE, Ankndo, JARSEEN, SXMQHY, WEGAZ, ANRANK, FAIGEO — all invented marks, all with documented overseas owners in the relevant product categories. In several instances, capitalisation was subtly altered from the original (ALIUXILUO for ALiuxiluo, for example) — enough to avoid an automatic identical mark rejection, but not enough to disguise the correspondence.

The Decision

Delegate Makrigiorgos acknowledged that no single data point was individually decisive. A person can file many trade marks for legitimate reasons. Marks can coincidentally resemble others. Capitalisation choices are not inherently suspicious.

But the cumulative effect of 47 applications, across a wide range of goods, where the marks are consistently invented and consistently coincide with marks owned by unrelated overseas traders — with capitalisation tweaks that appear designed to avoid identical-mark detection — is not coincidence. It is a systematic strategy. Zhang filed no evidence in response, offered no explanation, and did not appear at the hearing. With nothing on the other side of the scale, the inference of bad faith was overwhelming.

Section 62A was established. Registration was refused. Costs were awarded against Zhang.

Practical Takeaways

• Invented marks are highly distinctive — and worth protecting promptly. A mark like SCAIKTIG is powerful precisely because it's made up. That distinctiveness also makes it an attractive target for squatters. Overseas traders using invented brand names should register in Australia before others identify the gap.

• Evidence of Australian sales through e-commerce counts. Ailile's Amazon Australia sales from 2021 established its use in Australia years before Zhang's application. Cross-border digital commerce creates protectable use.

• Cumulative patterns ground bad faith findings. Individual applications that might be innocent in isolation become collectively compelling when they form a consistent pattern of targeting other traders' unregistered marks. Delegates look at the whole picture.

• Respond if you can. Zhang's complete silence — no evidence, no submissions, no appearance — made the delegate's task straightforward. If there is an innocent explanation for filing patterns, the hearing is the opportunity to provide it. Absence of explanation is itself telling.

Citation: Shenzhen Ailile Network Technology Co., Ltd v Xiaodan Zhang [2026] ATMO 138 (20 July 2026)

Facing a trade mark issue? Contact Stellar Law for expert advice.