CMP Investments Pty Ltd v Let?s Talk Entertainment Agency Pty Ltd

CMP Investments Pty Ltd (the Applicant) sought to register the trade mark "LET'S TALK" in relation to services. Let’s Talk Entertainment Agency Pty Ltd (the Opponent) opposed this application, relying on its registered trade mark "QUEST" for goods in Class 16, including various printed publications and advertising materials. The opposition was brought under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the Applicant's proposed trade mark "LET'S TALK" was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the Opponent's registered trade mark "QUEST" in relation to similar or closely related goods and services, and whether the Opponent's priority date was earlier than the Applicant's. The Opponent also contended that the Applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by the Opponent, which established its ownership and use of the "QUEST" trade mark in relation to a network of serviced apartments and associated printed materials. The Hearing Officer noted that the onus was on the Opponent to establish the grounds of opposition. Applying section 44 of the Act, the Hearing Officer found that the trade marks "LET'S TALK" and "QUEST" were neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar. Furthermore, the goods in Class 16 for which the "QUEST" mark was registered were not considered similar or closely related to the services for which the "LET'S TALK" mark was sought.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the Applicant's trade mark application for the goods in Class 16. However, the Applicant was given an opportunity to amend its application by deleting the Class 16 specification of goods within three weeks, after which the application could proceed to registration. The Opponent was awarded its costs on the official scale.