International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd v Multix Pty Ltd

In *International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd v Multix Pty Ltd*, heard by Terry Williams J, the dispute concerned an opposition to the registration of a trade mark. Multix Pty Ltd was represented by patent attorney Russell Waters, and International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd (Consolidated) was represented by patent attorney Robert Strickland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trade mark sought to be registered was deceptively similar to an existing trade mark, as defined by section 10 of the relevant Act. This definition requires that a trade mark be so nearly resembling another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Consolidated argued that the terms "QUICK ZIP" and "CLICK ZIP" were phonetically similar and lacked sufficient semantic distinction in relation to the product they denoted, making them likely to cause confusion.

Justice Williams considered expert evidence regarding the phonetic similarities between "quick" and "click," noting that while the sounds were close, the expert's opinion on the significance of this closeness was not definitive. The court also considered the concept of contextual resolution, acknowledging that while context can sometimes resolve auditory ambiguity, this is more limited when comparing trade marks. The judge found the expert report offered little beyond explaining the obvious and noted that the expert had not been informed of the full trade mark being compared, which included the element "MULTIX." The court also referred to established principles for trade mark comparison, including cases where a prominent element of one mark did not necessarily dispel the prospect of confusion with another mark.

The court did not make final orders in the provided text.