Keune Haircosmetics Manufacturing BV v Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Keune Haircosmetics Manufacturing BV (the applicant) sought to prevent Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd (the respondent) from registering a trade mark for hair care products. The applicant, a Dutch company, alleged that the respondent's proposed mark, which included the word "KEUNE" in a distinctive font and colour scheme, was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks, also featuring the word "KEUNE" for similar goods. The applicant sought to rely on grounds of opposition under the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), specifically sections 44 and 60.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent's proposed trade mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's registered trade marks, and whether the respondent's use of the mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers, thereby infringing section 60 of the Act. The Court was required to assess the degree of visual, aural, and conceptual similarity between the marks, considering the goods for which they were to be registered and the relevant trading public.

Justice Kirov considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the visual appearance of the marks and the nature of the goods. The Court found that while there were some differences in the overall presentation, the dominant element of both marks was the word "KEUNE". Applying the principles of deceptive similarity, which require an assessment of whether an ordinary consumer, with imperfect recollection, would be confused, the Court determined that the marks were deceptively similar. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicant had established a reputation in Australia for its "KEUNE" branded products, and that the respondent's proposed mark would be likely to cause confusion and dilution of that reputation, thus infringing section 60.

The Court upheld the opposition and ordered that the respondent's application for registration of the trade mark be refused.