Jones v Thomson

Jones (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by Thomson (the respondent), the Registrar of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The applicant challenged the Registrar's decision to refuse to register a company name, "Aus-China Trade Pty Ltd," on the basis that it was too similar to an existing registered company name, "Aus-China Trading Pty Ltd." The application was heard by Driver J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar had erred in law by refusing to register the applicant's proposed company name. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the two names were "too like" each other within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) and associated regulations, which govern company name registration and prohibit the registration of names that are identical or too similar to existing names.

Driver J reasoned that the test for determining if names are "too like" involves a consideration of the overall impression created by the names, rather than a mere comparison of individual words. His Honour noted that the addition of "Pty Ltd" to the applicant's proposed name, and "Trading Pty Ltd" to the existing name, did not sufficiently distinguish them. The Court found that the dominant and distinctive part of both names was "Aus-China Trade," and that the difference in the suffix ("Trade" versus "Trading") was unlikely to prevent confusion in the minds of the public. Applying this principle, Driver J concluded that the Registrar had correctly applied the law and that the names were indeed too alike.

Consequently, Driver J dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the Registrar's decision to refuse the registration of the company name "Aus-China Trade Pty Ltd."