Intuit Inc v Guangzhou Dasen Lighting Electronics Limited

Intuit Inc. opposed the registration of a trade mark by Guangzhou Dasen Lighting Electronics Limited. The dispute concerned whether the applicant's trade mark should be registered in Australia, with Intuit Inc. relying on its existing trade marks to argue that the proposed registration would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The matter was heard by Bianca Irgang, a Hearing Officer.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the ground of opposition under section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) had been established. This required determining if Intuit Inc.'s existing trade marks, "INTUIT" and "INTUIT stylised," had acquired a reputation in Australia prior to the priority date of the applicant's trade mark application, and if, due to that reputation, the use of the applicant's trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public.

The Hearing Officer reasoned that section 60 does not require the goods to be similar or the trade marks to be substantially identical or deceptively similar, although in this instance, the trade marks were found to be at least deceptively similar due to a single letter difference and phonetic identity. Applying the principles from *Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths*, the Hearing Officer considered whether the ordinary person would be left in doubt about the source of the goods or services. The assessment focused on the potential use of the applicant's trade mark, not just its past use, and took into account all surrounding circumstances. The Hearing Officer found that Intuit Inc. had met the onus of proof for the section 60 ground of opposition.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer refused to register the applicant's trade mark application and awarded costs against the applicant.