Colgate- Palmolive Co v Unilever PLC

This matter concerned an opposition by Colgate-Palmolive Company to an application by Unilever PLC to register the trade mark LYNX SPEED for shower gel. Colgate-Palmolive, the opponent, had been marketing men's and women's underarm deodorants in Australia under the SPEED STICK and LADY SPEED STICK trade marks since 1965 and the 1980s respectively. These trade marks had substantial sales and advertising expenditure, and the products were widely distributed in major retail outlets. Unilever's proposed LYNX SPEED product was a men's shower gel, and Colgate-Palmolive expressed concern that confusion would arise if the use of the trade mark was extended to other goods within the scope of Unilever's application.

The primary legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the use of the LYNX SPEED trade mark by Unilever was likely to cause confusion with Colgate-Palmolive's existing SPEED STICK and LADY SPEED STICK trade marks, pursuant to sections 44 and 60 of the relevant Act. Colgate-Palmolive argued that the similarity in the marks, coupled with the commonality of the goods (toiletries), would lead to a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Unilever, on the other hand, highlighted the significant sales and market presence of its LYNX brand of toiletries, suggesting that consumers would distinguish between the two brands.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by both parties, including statutory declarations detailing sales figures, advertising expenditure, and distribution channels. The Hearing Officer noted that while there had been no reported instances of confusion, this might be attributable to the limited use of Unilever's mark on shower gels. The Hearing Officer also took into account the distinctiveness of the LYNX brand in the Australian market, acknowledging its substantial sales. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer found that the grounds of opposition were not established, and therefore, the application could proceed to registration.

As Unilever was successful in these proceedings, the Hearing Officer ordered that costs be paid by the opponent, Colgate-Palmolive.