One Mark, Two Outcomes: COIDEA Opposition Splits on Bags vs Nets

One Mark, Two Outcomes: COIDEA Opposition Splits on Bags vs Nets

When a trade mark covers a sprawling range of goods — shoe bags and tow ropes, cloth bags and bird nets — it creates an interesting problem for bad faith analysis. You might be squatting on one part of the specification while having a theoretically plausible purpose for another. The COIDEA case tackled exactly this scenario, with the delegate finding different grounds applicable to different goods and arriving at a nuanced split result.

Background: The COIDEA Brand

Zhifei Zeng is the operator of the COIDEA brand, which has sold shoe bags, cloth bags, and textile storage bags since 2016. Australian orders through Amazon are confirmed from December 2022 and January 2023, with annual sales figures for 2023 through 2025. Zeng holds a US trade mark registration for COIDEA in Classes 11 and 22. COIDEA is an invented word — it has no dictionary meaning and functions as a distinctive brand identifier.

In February 2025, Yihao He filed an application to register COIDEA in Australia in Class 22, covering a mixed bag of goods: shoe bags, garment bags, cloth bags, textile bags — but also tow ropes, tow lines, animal feeding nets, nets, bird nets, and bale wrapping nets. Zeng opposed on grounds of prior ownership (section 58), no intention to use (section 59), and bad faith (section 62A).

The Bags: Section 58 Succeeds

For the storage bag goods, the outcome was straightforward. Delegate Tracey Berger found that Zeng had established prior use of COIDEA in Australia for shoe bags, garment bags, cloth bags, and similar storage goods before He's application date. These goods are the "same kind of thing" as Zeng's established product line.

Section 58 provides that an opponent can succeed by showing they are the owner of the mark — which ownership can be established through prior use in Australia. Zeng's documented sales history predated He's filing. For the bag and storage goods, section 58 was established and registration refused.

The Nets and Ropes: Bad Faith Steps In

Tow ropes, tow lines, animal feeding nets, bird nets, and bale wrapping nets are not the "same kind of thing" as shoe bags. Zeng has never sold nets or ropes under COIDEA. Section 58 couldn't extend to these goods.

But section 62A — bad faith — could. The analysis here turned on the nature of COIDEA as a mark and on He's broader filing patterns.

COIDEA is a purely invented word with no descriptive relationship to nets, ropes, or agricultural equipment. If someone wants to register an invented storage-bag brand name for animal feeding nets and tow ropes, the natural question is: why? He filed 59 trade mark applications in Australia in the preceding period. Of those, 12 were withdrawn shortly after filing, 4 were under opposition, and others had lapsed without response to examination. The pattern — many applications, significant attrition through withdrawal and lapse — was consistent with opportunistic filing rather than genuine commercial intent.

He filed no evidence and no submissions. With no explanation offered for why an invented bag-brand word would be needed for tow ropes and bird nets, and with a filing history suggesting systemic speculative filing, the delegate found the bad faith inference was established for the non-bag goods.

The Decision

All goods in the application were refused. For bag goods: section 58. For nets and ropes: section 62A. Costs were awarded against He.

Practical Takeaways

• Broad specifications invite targeted opposition. A Class 22 specification covering both storage bags and agricultural nets looks suspicious when the opponent's mark is specifically used for storage bags. The breadth itself raises questions about genuine commercial intent.

• Different grounds apply to different parts of a specification. Delegates don't have to find a single ground that covers all goods. They can apply section 58 to some goods and section 62A to others if the facts support it.

• Prior use in Australia through digital commerce is protectable. Zeng's Amazon sales from late 2022 were accepted as establishing prior use in Australia. Cross-border e-commerce, properly documented, creates real trade mark rights.

• Filing invented marks for wholly unrelated goods undermines legitimacy. Using a storage bag brand name to file for agricultural netting is precisely the kind of inexplicable filing decision that bad faith doctrine is designed to capture. If a mark has no obvious connection to the goods claimed, the absence of explanation is significant.

Citation: Zhifei Zeng v Yihao He [2026] ATMO 143 (29 July 2026)

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