Cars on Demand IP Pty Ltd v Cars on Demand Limited

Cars on Demand IP Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Cars on Demand Limited (the respondent) to restrain the respondent from using the trade mark "Cars on Demand" in relation to its car rental services. The applicant alleged that the respondent's use of the mark infringed its registered trade mark and constituted misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Australian Consumer Law*. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had established a serious question to be tried regarding trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the Court had to consider the likelihood of confusion between the two marks, the strength of the applicant's registered trade mark, and the potential harm to each party if an injunction was granted or refused.

In determining the application, the Court applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The Court considered the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks, the nature of the services offered, and the respective trading areas. It also weighed the potential prejudice to the applicant if the injunction was not granted against the potential prejudice to the respondent if it was.

The Court ultimately refused to grant the interlocutory injunction, finding that the applicant had not established a sufficient likelihood of confusion to warrant such an order at this interlocutory stage. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant.