HamLon Pty Ltd v EziAdz Pty Ltd

HamLon Pty Ltd (the opponent) opposed the registration of trade mark application no. 1567890 by EziAdz Pty Ltd (the applicant) in class 16 for the goods "articles of cardboard for display purposes", "display banners made of cardboard", "printed cardboard articles" and "cardboard faced with polyester". The opposition was based on the opponent's prior use and alleged similarity of goods to its own products, including display stands made from recycled fibre board, marketed under the "EcoPOP" brand. The matter came before the court for determination of the opposition.

The court was required to determine whether the goods covered by the applicant's trade mark application were similar to the opponent's goods, and whether the applicant's proposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion, having regard to the opponent's prior use and the alleged similarity of the marks. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the applicant's claimed goods in class 16 and compare them with the opponent's goods, which included display stands and components, some of which were made from cardboard-like materials.

The court considered the evidence of both parties regarding their respective businesses and products. The opponent, HamLon Pty Ltd, demonstrated its long-standing involvement in the provision of point of sale materials, including display equipment made from sustainable materials like recycled fibre board, and the use of the "EcoPOP" label. The applicant, EziAdz Pty Ltd, relied on its design registrations and patents for pop-up brochure holders and product dispensers marketed under the "EZI POP" brand, and its trade mark registration in class 16 for "paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials; printed matter; plastic materials for packaging". The court noted that both parties had exhibited their products at industry expos.

The court found that the applicant's claimed goods in class 16, such as "articles of cardboard for display purposes" and "display banners made of cardboard", were sufficiently broad to encompass goods that were similar to the opponent's display stands and related items. The court also considered the similarity of the trade marks, noting the phonetic and visual similarities between "EcoPOP" and "EZI POP". Given the overlap in the nature of the goods and the similarity of the marks, the court concluded that there was a real likelihood of deception or confusion. The opposition was therefore upheld.