Lever Bros, Ltd v Lewis Grant Abrams

This case involved an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which had allowed the registration of a trade mark for boot polish, linoleum polish, and harness dressing. The appellants, owners of the registered trade mark "Sunlight" for soaps and various polishing compounds, opposed this registration. The respondent's proposed trade mark featured the word "Sunlight" prominently, along with a rising sun emblem, similar to elements used by the appellants. The appellants contended that the respondent's mark was confusingly similar to their own and that its registration would deceive the public into believing the goods were of the appellants' manufacture.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's proposed trade mark so closely resembled the appellants' registered mark as to be likely to deceive the public, and whether the goods for which registration was sought were "the like goods, or class of goods" to those already registered by the appellants. The court was required to interpret sections 25 and 114 of the *Trade Marks Act 1905*. Section 25 deals with disputes between owners of existing trade marks and applicants for new registrations concerning similar goods, while section 114 addresses whether a mark, if registered, would be likely to deceive the public.

The court reasoned that, irrespective of whether the goods were strictly "the like goods" under section 25, the respondent's trade mark, by incorporating the word "Sunlight" and a rising sun emblem, bore a striking resemblance to the appellants' established mark. This resemblance, coupled with the established reputation of the "Sunlight" brand for cleaning and polishing products, created a significant likelihood of deception. The court applied the principle from *Eno v. Dunn*, which established that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that their mark is not calculated to deceive once a prima facie case of potential confusion is made. The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge this onus, and the presence of the word "Agent" alongside the respondent's name further suggested an attempt to leverage the appellants' goodwill.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, declaring that the application for registration should be refused. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs incurred before the Registrar.