Amazon Technologies, Inc v Ringwall Ltd

This decision concerns an opposition filed by Amazon Technologies, Inc. (the Opponent) against an application by Ringwall Ltd (the Applicant) to register the trade mark RINGWALL. The opposition was brought under section 52 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), relying on grounds under sections 44, 60, and 42. The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether the grounds of opposition were established.

The primary legal issue was whether the Applicant's proposed trade mark RINGWALL was deceptively similar to the Opponent's registered trade marks, specifically trade marks 401 and 700, for the purposes of section 44 of the Act. The Opponent argued that the word "RING" formed the entirety of its earlier marks and was identical to the leading part of the Applicant's mark. The Opponent contended that the commonality of the word "RING," being the first syllable, was particularly significant for distinctiveness, and that the addition of "WALL" to "RING" did not sufficiently distinguish the marks, especially when considering the goods in question, such as wall lights and LED lamps.

The Hearing Officer found that the trade marks were deceptively similar. Applying principles from established case law, the assessment considered the degree of similarity between the marks, the circumstances of the goods, the character of the likely customers, and the market covered by the trade mark monopoly. The Hearing Officer noted that the word "RING" had no apparent meaning in relation to the goods, and while "WALL" was descriptive of wall lights, it did not significantly alter the imperfect recollection of the ordinary consumer, who would likely recall the mark by its leading word, "RING." The Hearing Officer concluded that there was a real and tangible danger of confusion, leading to the finding that the trade marks were deceptively similar. As the Applicant had not sought acceptance under alternative provisions of section 44, the Opponent had successfully established the ground of opposition under section 44.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the trade mark RINGWALL. Costs were awarded against the Applicant, following the usual principle that costs follow the event.