LBJ Trademarks LLC v Bronson Olsen and Jun Min Zhou

LBJ Trademarks LLC, the applicant, sought to register the trade mark LEBRON. Bronson Olsen and Jun Min Zhou, the opponents, opposed this application. The dispute concerned whether the applicant's proposed trade mark should be registered, given the existence of a prior registered trade mark for the same mark. The decision was made by Debrett Lyons, a Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark application should be rejected under section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This required determining if the applicant's trade mark was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the opponents' registered trade mark for clothing, footwear, and headgear, and if the priority date of the applicant's mark was not earlier than that of the opponents' mark. The definition of "deceptively similar" under section 10 of the Act, meaning a mark that is likely to deceive or cause confusion, was also central to the determination.

The Hearing Officer reasoned that the opponents' registered trade mark, LEBRON, had an earlier priority date and covered goods that were identical to those for which the applicant sought registration. While the applicant's mark was not found to be substantially identical to the opponents' mark, the Hearing Officer considered whether it was deceptively similar. Evidence was presented demonstrating that LeBron James, the individual whose name formed the trade mark, is a globally recognised and highly influential sportsman. Although no evidence or submissions were provided by the applicants, the Hearing Officer concluded that the LEBRON trade mark, in the context of clothing, footwear, and headgear, was likely to deceive or cause confusion due to its strong association with the well-known individual.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer found that the opponents had established a ground of opposition under section 44. The application for registration of the trade mark LEBRON was refused. The Hearing Officer also awarded costs against the applicants in favour of the opponents.