Chapter 4 Corp DBA Supreme v Shenzhen Supbro Fashion Sports Co Ltd

Chapter 4 Corp DBA Supreme opposed the registration of two trade mark applications, numbers 2045183 (Class 20) and 2045199 (Class 25), filed by Shenzhen Supbro Fashion Sports Co Ltd. The applications sought to register the figurative mark "SupBro". The Opponent relied on grounds including section 62A of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), which concerns trade marks that are identical or deceptively similar to earlier trade marks used in the course of trade.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the "SupBro" figurative mark was deceptively similar to the Opponent's earlier trade marks, specifically those incorporating the words "SUPREME" or "SUP", used in relation to clothing, accessories, and retail services. The Opponent bore the burden of proving this similarity on the balance of probabilities, with rights assessed as at the relevant dates of the applications.

The Hearing Officer considered evidence of the Opponent's extensive use of its "SUPREME" and "SUP" marks since 1994, including their application to a wide range of goods and services, their global reputation, and significant Australian website traffic. However, the evidence regarding the use of the "SUP" mark was less substantial than that for "SUPREME", and the Opponent did not provide specific figures for Australian consumers accessing its mobile application. Crucially, the Hearing Officer found that the "SupBro" mark, when considered as a whole, was not deceptively similar to the Opponent's marks, particularly given the visual differences and the distinctiveness of the "SupBro" mark. The ground under section 62A was therefore not established.

As the Opponent failed to establish any of the grounds of opposition pressed, the applications for the trade mark "SupBro" were permitted to proceed to registration. The Hearing Officer ordered that costs be awarded against the Opponent.