Eres SAS v Michael Hilellis

This decision concerns an opposition by Eres SAS (the Opponent) to the registration of a trade mark by Michael Hilellis (the Applicant). The dispute centred on whether the Applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the Opponent's registered trade mark, thereby infringing section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The matter was heard by a Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer was required to determine whether the Applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the Opponent's trade mark, having regard to the nature of the goods and the likelihood of the marks being spoken and heard identically. The Hearing Officer also had to decide whether to refuse or register the Applicant's trade mark, pursuant to section 55 of the Act, based on the grounds of opposition established.

In reaching the decision, the Hearing Officer considered the difference in the initial letters of the compared marks but concluded that this was outweighed by the nature of the goods and the probability of the marks being spoken and heard identically. The Hearing Officer found that there was a real and tangible danger of deception or confusion, establishing that the marks were deceptively similar and that the ground of opposition under section 44 of the Act had been made out. Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the Applicant's trade mark. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the Applicant in accordance with section 221 of the Act.