Freshcare Limited v Pt. Ultra Sakti

Freshcare Limited opposed the registration of the trade mark application 2115355, comprising the words "FreshCare" with a tree device, in classes 3 and 5, by Pt. Ultra Sakti. The opposition was heard by Nicholas Barbey.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to Freshcare Limited's registered trade mark, Freshcare, and whether the applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as the nature of the goods and services for which registration was sought.

The court considered the established principles for assessing deceptive similarity, including the "imperfect recollection" test and the importance of focusing on the dominant features of the marks. It was noted that while the applicant's mark included a device, the word element "FreshCare" was prominent. The court found that the visual and conceptual similarities between the marks were significant, and that the inclusion of the tree device did not sufficiently distinguish the applicant's mark from the opponent's registered mark. Consequently, the court determined that there was a real likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers, particularly given the overlap in the goods and services offered.

The opposition was therefore upheld.