Furfresh Pty Ltd v David Haythornthwaite

Furfresh Pty Ltd opposed the registration of the trade mark application number 2144080, for the mark "furf.", in classes 21 and 27, by David Haythornthwaite. The opposition was heard by Katrina Brown.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark "furf." was deceptively similar to Furfresh Pty Ltd's registered trade mark "FURFRESH" for goods in the same or similar classes. This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, and whether an ordinary consumer would be deceived or confused into believing that the goods offered under the applicant's mark originated from, or were connected with, the opponent.

In determining deceptive similarity, the court applied the established principles of trade mark law, considering the marks as a whole and the imperfect recollection of consumers. The court found that while the marks shared some visual and aural similarities, the presence of the full word "FRESH" in the opponent's mark, contrasted with the abbreviated "furf." in the applicant's mark, created a sufficient distinction. The court concluded that the average consumer, exercising ordinary care and attention, would not be deceived or confused into believing that the goods were from the same source.

Consequently, the opposition was dismissed.