Anagenix IP Limited v Pharmazen Ltd

This matter concerned an opposition by Pharmazen Ltd (the opponent) to the registration of a trade mark by Anagenix IP Limited (the applicant). The dispute centred on whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the opponent's registered trade mark, ACTAZIN, for goods including kiwifruit extract powder. The hearing officer was required to determine if the grounds of opposition under section 44 of the relevant Act were established.

The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark, ACTAZIN, within the meaning of section 44(1) of the Act. To succeed in this ground, the opponent needed to demonstrate the existence of a registered trade mark (which it had), that the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to it, and that the goods or services were similar or closely related. The hearing officer noted that the opponent's trade mark had an earlier priority date and the goods were identical, thus narrowing the focus to the similarity of the marks themselves.

The hearing officer found that the opponent had not established any grounds for opposition. Consequently, the applicant's trade mark application was permitted to proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, unless an appeal was filed. The hearing officer also awarded costs against the opponent.