GWC Electronics Pty Limited v Coin Acceptors Inc

This decision concerns an opposition by Coin Acceptors, Inc. (the opponent) to the registration of a trade mark application by GWC Electronics Pty Limited (the applicant). The applicant sought to register the trade mark "COINTECH" (within a device) for "coin operated machines" in Class 9. The opponent opposed this registration on several grounds under the *Trade Marks Act 1995*, including that the mark was not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods, its use would be contrary to law, it was likely to deceive or cause confusion due to similarity with the opponent's earlier trade mark "COINCO", and that the mark had acquired a reputation in Australia such that its use would deceive or cause confusion.

The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was required to determine whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to the opponent's earlier registered trade mark "COINCO" for the purposes of sections 44 and 60 of the Act. The delegate also considered grounds relating to sections 41 and 42, but found these were not supported by evidence. The core of the determination rested on assessing the similarity between the marks "COINTECH" (with a device) and "COINCO" (a word mark), and whether their use in relation to coin-operated machines and coin-handling devices would likely deceive or cause confusion, considering both visual and aural recall, and the reputation of the opponent's mark.

The delegate reasoned that while the prefix "COIN-" was common to both marks and descriptive of the goods, the suffixes "-TECH" and "-CO" were distinct. Applying established tests for deceptive similarity, including the doctrine of imperfect recollection, the delegate found that the visual differences between the marks, particularly the device element in the applicant's mark and the distinct suffixes, were significant. Furthermore, the delegate concluded that the spoken words "COINTECH" and "COINCO" were not likely to be confused, especially given the distinct pronunciation of the suffixes and the common use of "COIN-" in the trade. The delegate also interpreted section 60 of the Act as requiring substantial identity or deceptive similarity between the marks, a threshold that was not met. Consequently, the opposition was not successful on any of the grounds raised.

Accordingly, the delegate dismissed the opposition. Subject to any appeal, the applicant's trade mark application was permitted to proceed to registration.