Pop Beauty Ltd Cofinluxe v Cofinluxe Pop Beauty Ltd

This decision concerns oppositions filed by Cofinluxe against two Australian trade mark applications by Pop Beauty Ltd: application number 1056871 for the mark POP PARFUM and application number 1042837 for the mark POP BEAUTY (or POPBEAUTY). The hearing officer, Terry Williams, was required to determine whether any grounds of opposition had been established by Cofinluxe.

The primary legal issue was whether the trade marks applied for by Pop Beauty Ltd were distinctive and therefore registrable, or whether they were too descriptive and should be refused registration. This involved assessing the distinctiveness of the word "BEAUTY" as a component of the applicant's mark in light of the opponent's arguments.

The hearing officer found that while the word "BEAUTY" is descriptive, it functions as a free-standing element within the applicant's trade mark. He concluded that the applicant's mark is as much about "beauty" as it is about "pop". Applying principles similar to those considered in relation to the protection of POP PARFUM against POPSCENT, the hearing officer found Ms Ryan's argument unconvincing. Consequently, no grounds of opposition were established for either application.

The hearing officer decided to extend protection in Australia for application number 1056871 (POP PARFUM) and allowed application number 1042837 (POP BEAUTY/POPBEAUTY) to proceed to registration, subject to the usual appeal period. No award of costs was made.