Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v Tags & Accessories Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an opposition by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (the opponent) to a trade mark application by Tags & Accessories Pty Ltd (the applicant) for the mark GLAMGIRL. The opposition was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The opponent relied on grounds of opposition under sections 42, 44, and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant's proposed mark GLAMGIRL was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the opponent's registered GLAMOUR trade marks, and whether the use of GLAMGIRL would be likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers, thereby infringing sections 44 and 60 of the Act. The delegate also considered section 42, though the specific grounds under this section were not detailed in the provided text.

The delegate found that while the opponent's GLAMOUR trade marks had earlier priority dates, the mark GLAMGIRL was not substantially identical to them, noting obvious differences upon side-by-side comparison and a lack of overall impression of similarity. Regarding deceptive similarity and the likelihood of deception or confusion under sections 44 and 60, the delegate applied the test that there must be a "real or not remote chance or possibility" of a reasonably significant number of people being misled or deceived. Based on the evidence, which showed low and falling circulation figures for the US edition of GLAMOUR magazine in Australia and no exhibits demonstrating use in Australia, the delegate was not satisfied that the use of GLAMGIRL would likely cause consumers to be misled or deceived.

Consequently, the delegate determined that the opponent had not established any of the grounds of opposition. The opposition was unsuccessful, and the delegate directed that the trade mark application number 861216 proceed to registration, subject to payment of the registration fee, one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. No award of costs was made due to the applicant's minimal involvement in the proceedings.