Forty-Three Applications and a Pattern of Copying: PEASUR Registration Refused on Bad Faith

Forty-Three Applications and a Pattern of Copying: PEASUR Registration Refused on Bad Faith

Trade mark law assumes good faith. It is built on the premise that applicants are seeking protection for marks they have a genuine business reason to own. When that assumption is tested by a pattern of behaviour — dozens of applications, multiple invented marks coinciding with overseas traders' existing brands — the inference of bad faith becomes difficult to avoid. The PEASUR opposition shows exactly how that inference is drawn, and what happens when the applicant offers no explanation.

Background: Who Was Using PEASUR?

Hong Chen is not a household name in Australia, but the PEASUR brand is well-established in certain solar and LED lighting markets. Since July 2023, Chen has sold PEASUR-branded solar lights and LED products through Amazon Germany (with shipping to Australian customers) and on eBay. Beyond Australia, Chen holds registrations for PEASUR as a trade mark in Japan, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — all in the lighting goods sector. PEASUR is an invented word with no ordinary meaning: exactly the kind of mark that is both highly distinctive and commercially valuable.

In January 2025, chenfei yao filed an application to register PEASUR in Australia for Class 11 goods — including lighting, lamps, and related items. That's the same sector, the same mark, the same type of invented distinctive word. Chen opposed.

The Pattern That Sealed the Outcome

The opposition proceeded on the ground of bad faith under section 62A of the Trade Marks Act 1995. Chen produced evidence of prior use in Australia — two sales screenshots and Amazon product pages — demonstrating that PEASUR was already associated with Chen's goods in the Australian market before yao's application.

But the more telling evidence was about yao's filing history as a whole. At the time of the hearing, yao had filed 43 trade mark applications in Australia, of which 25 had been registered and 17 were pending. The critical detail: at least three of those applications — for the marks MEIBOOCH, HLFVLITE, and Wanjiaone — corresponded to marks already owned by other unrelated overseas traders for the same types of goods. Like PEASUR, these are all invented, distinctive words that have no ordinary dictionary meaning. They did not arise independently by coincidence.

The delegate, Anne Makrigiorgos, noted the pattern carefully. Each filing, considered in isolation, might be capable of explanation. Taken together, they form a consistent picture: an applicant systematically identifying invented marks used by overseas traders who do not yet hold Australian registrations, and filing those marks in Australia before the overseas owners can do so themselves.

No Response, No Explanation

chenfei yao filed no evidence and no submissions in response to the opposition. This is significant. When an opponent raises a prima facie case of bad faith — particularly one grounded in a statistically improbable pattern of coincidences — the applicant has an opportunity to provide an innocent explanation. None was offered. The absence of any explanation, in circumstances where one would be expected if the filings were legitimate, strengthened the inference.

Delegate Makrigiorgos found that section 62A was established. Registration was refused. Costs were awarded against yao.

Practical Takeaways

• Invented marks deserve — and require — proactive Australian registration. A distinctive, made-up mark like PEASUR has strong protection once registered — but only if the owner registers it. Overseas traders using invented brand names in Australia should file Australian applications early, before others identify the gap.

• Bad faith can be inferred from patterns, not just individual acts. The law doesn't require proof of a smoking gun. A consistent pattern of filing invented marks that happen to belong to unrelated overseas traders is sufficient to ground a bad faith finding, particularly when no explanation is offered.

• Evidence of sales in Australia counts — even through overseas platforms. Chen's Amazon Germany sales with Australian delivery, and eBay sales, were accepted as evidence of use in Australia. Cross-border e-commerce matters.

• Filing a response matters. An applicant who offers no evidence and no submissions leaves the delegate with only one side of the story. If there is an innocent explanation for filing patterns, the hearing is the place to provide it.

Citation: Hong Chen v chenfei yao [2026] ATMO 131 (14 July 2026)

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