Show Up or Lose: How WellNova Defended Its Akusoli Trade Mark by Being Prepared

Show Up or Lose: How WellNova Defended Its Akusoli Trade Mark by Being Prepared

Trade mark proceedings at IP Australia are adversarial. One party files an application; the other defends it. What happens when only one party does the work? This straightforward lesson plays out in the recent akusoli decision — a case where a well-prepared owner successfully defended its registration against a removal application filed by an opponent who then vanished from the proceedings entirely.

Background: The Akusoli Brand

The trade mark akusoli (TM 2440608) covers shoe insoles, orthopaedic insoles, and online retail services in Classes 10, 25, and 35. The mark was originally registered by WellNova Solutions Inc., which later assigned it to UAB Orbio World — a Lithuanian company operating an active e-commerce business under the akusoli brand.

In March 2025, a person named yang yuxuan filed an application to remove the akusoli mark, alleging that WellNova had no genuine intention to use the mark at the time of filing — the section 92(4)(a) ground under the Trade Marks Act 1995. WellNova opposed the removal.

WellNova's Evidence: Comprehensive and Compelling

WellNova took the proceedings seriously and it showed. The evidence filed in opposition to removal included:

• Multiple trade mark registrations for akusoli across Australia, China, and the European Union

• Screenshots from active e-commerce websites demonstrating the brand's commercial operation

• Invoices showing actual sales to Australian customers during the relevant period

• Third-party retailer listings featuring the akusoli brand

• Documentation of the licence granted by WellNova to UAB Orbio World to operate the akusoli brand commercially

This was not a speculative filing. This was a real business, with a real product, with documented Australian sales.

Yang Yuxuan: Filed and Disappeared

The contrast with the removal applicant's conduct could not have been more stark. Yang yuxuan filed the removal application in March 2025 and then filed precisely nothing further. No evidence was submitted. No submissions were lodged. No appearance was made at the hearing.

This left Delegate Nicholas Smith with a straightforward task. Under section 92(4)(a), the onus is on the removal applicant to make out the case that the registered owner had no genuine intention to use the mark at filing. Once the opponent provides evidence of genuine commercial activity — which WellNova did, convincingly — the onus shifts to the removal applicant to rebut that evidence. Yang yuxuan offered nothing.

The Decision

Delegate Smith found that WellNova had clearly established genuine commercial use of the akusoli mark in Australia, supported by comprehensive documentation. The removal application was dismissed. Costs were awarded against yang yuxuan.

The case may seem almost unremarkable in its simplicity — one party prepared, one party didn't, and the prepared party won. But it carries important lessons for anyone navigating Australian trade mark proceedings.

Practical Takeaways

• Active use is your best protection. WellNova's position was secure because it was running a genuine business. A trade mark that's actually being used in commerce — with sales records, websites, and invoices to show for it — is far more defensible than one that's merely registered.

• Document everything, regularly. The ability to produce invoices, website screenshots, and retailer listings on short notice came from good recordkeeping. Businesses should maintain an ongoing archive of evidence of their trade mark use — dates, sales, advertising, platforms.

• Proper licensing must be documented too. WellNova's ability to point to a formal licence with UAB Orbio World was important. Informal arrangements or unrecorded "understandings" between related entities can create exactly the kind of evidential gap that removal applicants exploit.

• If you file a removal application, be prepared to follow through. Filing and then disappearing is not just ineffective — it results in a costs order against you. IP Australia will not do the removal applicant's work for them.

Citation: WellNova Solutions Inc. v yang yuxuan [2026] ATMO 129 (14 July 2026)

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