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.

⚖️ 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 by Otto 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.