58 Trade Marks and Zero Credibility: EPAuto Registration Removed for No Genuine Intent

58 Trade Marks and Zero Credibility: EPAuto Registration Removed for No Genuine Intent

A trade mark registration is not a property right you can acquire speculatively. It requires a genuine intention to use the mark — and when the evidence suggests that intention was never real, IP Australia has the power to remove the registration entirely. A recent decision involving the EPAuto mark is a sharp reminder that serial trade mark filing raises red flags that are difficult to overcome.

Background: The EPAuto Mark

EP Family Corp. is a US-based company with a well-established EPAuto brand for hand tools — spanners, wrenches, and related items. When Qiuling Chen registered the trade mark EPAuto in Australia in December 2023 for goods in Class 8 (spanners, wrenches, hand tools), EP Family Corp took notice. Within just one month of registration being granted, they filed an application to have the mark removed under section 92(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 — on the basis that Chen had no genuine intention to use the mark at the time of filing.

Chen's Evidence: Thin, Unverifiable, and Disconnected

Chen filed three pieces of evidence in support of the registration: a letter from a person identified as "George Singh, lawyer", claiming that Chen had been using EPAuto since October 2023; and two screenshots from the website epauto.tech showing spanners.

None of it held up.

Counsel for EP Family Corp, Pryor of Mark My Words Trademark Services, ran a search of the New Zealand Law Society — the jurisdiction from which the letter purportedly originated — and found no record of a "George Singh." The letter was not in the approved form for statutory declarations or affidavits. Its probative value was essentially nil.

The website screenshots were similarly problematic. A WHOIS search of the domain epauto.tech showed that the domain was not registered to Chen. There was no demonstrated connection between Chen and the website. Screenshots of a website that someone else owns, showing products that someone else sells, cannot establish that Chen was using EPAuto as a trade mark in Australia.

The Bigger Picture: 58 Australian Trade Marks

Delegate Benjamin Goldsworthy's decision gained additional context from one striking piece of background evidence: Qiuling Chen held 58 Australian trade mark applications and registrations. Three of those registrations were already facing bad faith oppositions filed by other parties — unrelated overseas traders who had discovered that marks corresponding to their brands had been filed in Australia by Chen.

EP Family Corp. filed evidence of its own genuine use of EPAuto — demonstrating exactly what a legitimate rights holder looks like. By contrast, Chen's position was entirely paperwork, unsupported by credible documentation or verifiable commercial activity.

The Decision

Delegate Goldsworthy found that Chen's evidence failed to establish any actual use of EPAuto as a trade mark in Australia, and failed to demonstrate a genuine intention to use the mark at the time of filing. The registration was ordered removed. Costs were awarded against Chen.

The case was brought under section 92(4)(a) — the "no intention to use" limb of the non-use provisions. This is a particularly powerful tool for legitimate brand owners who discover that a speculative filer has registered their mark in Australia before they got there.

Practical Takeaways

• Genuine intention to use is a legal requirement, not a formality. When you file a trade mark application in Australia, you are representing that you intend to use the mark. If that representation is false — or unprovable — the registration can be challenged and removed.

• Serial filing is a red flag, not a strategy. Holding dozens of Australian trade marks across unrelated goods, with multiple already under challenge from the genuine owners of those marks, creates a pattern that is difficult to explain away. IP Australia is alive to these patterns.

• Your evidence needs to be verifiable and connected to you. Website screenshots from a domain you don't own, and letters from lawyers who can't be verified, are not going to carry a non-use challenge.

• Act quickly if your mark has been registered by someone else. Section 92(4)(a) allows removal applications immediately after registration — you don't have to wait three years. If you discover your brand has been squatted, take action without delay.

Citation: Qiuling Chen v EP Family Corp. [2026] ATMO 128 (13 July 2026)

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