Bitcoin Cash City Trade Mark Decision & Summary

Noel Lovisa's opposition to my Bitcoin Cash City trade mark has failed on all grounds and he has been ordered to pay me costs.

Bitcoin Cash City Trade Mark Decision & Summary

🧾 Case Summary: Bitcoin Cash City Trademark Dispute

Applicant: Hayden Dane Otto
Opponent: Noel Lovisa
Trade Mark: BITCOIN CASH CITY (Class 41: Educational, training, and event services)
Application Date: 25 September 2022
Decision Date: 3 July 2025
Outcome: Application succeeds; opposition dismissed on all grounds; costs awarded to the Applicant.

💡
The full decision is available in PDF format below.

⚖️ Grounds for Opposition and Decision

1. Section 58 – Not the True Owner

Claim: Lovisa alleged he (or his companies) first used the mark and Otto was merely an employee at the time, making Otto not the rightful owner.

Evidence & Findings:

  • The term Bitcoin Cash City was used in discussions and a promotional video before the 2019 conference.
  • Lovisa pointed to early usage on Reddit by an unrelated 3rd party, which he shared in a text message.
  • Otto demonstrated he independently coined the term in chats with a CoinSpice colleague in February 2019, during pre-production for his Bitcoin Cash City video.
  • Otto initiated early plans for an Australian Bitcoin Cash conference in August 2018.
  • The 2019 Bitcoin Cash City conference became the central point of dispute:
    • Lovisa’s view: His company BCH Pacific organized and funded it, and therefore owned the trademark.
    • Otto’s view: He originated the idea, secured speakers, handled branding and media, and BCH Pacific was merely a sponsor.
  • The Hearing Officer found no clear evidence as to who first used the mark in a way that established ownership. Since the burden of proof is on the Opponent, this ground failed.

2. Section 62A – Bad Faith

Claim: Otto applied for the trademark in bad faith, intending to usurp a mark associated with Lovisa and his companies.

Allegations included:

  • Otto was an employee at the time and should not have registered the mark.
  • Otto registered domains and social media accounts in his own name, including bitcoincashcity.com.
  • Otto later listed the domain for sale.
  • Otto made public statements damaging to Lovisa’s reputation.

Findings:

  • Otto registered domains and social media handles before his employment officially began in June 2019.
  • Employment agreements allowed outside projects and IP ownership was not automatically transferred.
  • Listing the domain for sale was well within Otto's rights as a domain name registrant.
  • Public statements were not false or defamatory.
  • No compelling evidence of a dishonest or exploitative motive.

Conclusion: The conduct did not fall short of acceptable commercial standards. This ground failed.


3. Section 60 – Reputation & Likelihood of Confusion

Claim: Lovisa’s use of Bitcoin Cash City for the 2019 conference had built a reputation, and Otto’s mark would cause confusion.

Findings:

  • Though BCH Pacific spent money promoting the conference, there was no clear evidence of significant recognition in the marketplace.
  • There were <100 ticket sales, limited media coverage, and no subsequent events to build on the name.
  • The Hearing Officer found no substantial evidence of confusion or widespread recognition of the mark as originating from Lovisa or BCH Pacific.

Conclusion: No sufficient reputation was established. This ground failed.


🧾 Costs

The Hearing Officer ordered costs against Lovisa, in line with the standard principle that costs follow the event. Costs are to be paid according to Schedule 8 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth).


✅ Final Decision

  • The trademark application for BITCOIN CASH CITY by Hayden Dane Otto will proceed to registration.
  • All three grounds of opposition (ownership, bad faith, reputation/confusion) failed.
  • Lovisa must pay Otto’s costs.