Julius Samann Ltd v Unilever Plc

Julius Samann Ltd (the applicant) sought to register the trade mark "SAMANN" for use in relation to a range of goods including soaps, detergents, and cosmetics. Unilever Plc (the opponent) opposed the registration on the grounds that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to its registered trade mark "SUNLIGHT" for similar goods, and that the registration would be contrary to section 18 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth) (the Act). The matter came before Bianca Irgang, sitting as delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue for determination was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark "SAMANN" was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark "SUNLIGHT" for the purposes of section 44 of the Act. This required the delegate to consider the degree of visual, aural, and conceptual resemblance between the two marks, as well as the nature of the goods in relation to which the marks were to be used. The delegate also had to consider whether the applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among a significant number of consumers.

In reaching her decision, the delegate applied the principles established in cases such as *Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Rohm & Haas Co* and *Registrar of Trade Marks v Colt Industries Inc*. She found that while there were some visual and aural differences between "SAMANN" and "SUNLIGHT", the overall impression conveyed by the marks, particularly in relation to soaps and detergents, was one of similarity. The delegate considered that consumers might be led to believe that the goods bearing the "SAMANN" mark originated from or were connected with the same source as the goods bearing the "SUNLIGHT" mark, thereby causing deception or confusion. Consequently, the delegate upheld the opposition.