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.

🧾 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 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.