Re: Opposition by Forbo Financial Services AG to registration of trade mark applications numbers 1944409 (1, 2) - EUROPOL and 1944411 (1, 2) – EUROPOL and device - in the name of Europol Pty Ltd

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered opposition proceedings brought by Forbo Financial Services AG against two Australian trade mark applications filed by Europol Pty Ltd. The applications sought registration of the mark EUROPOL and a device incorporating the word EUROPOL for financial services. Forbo Financial Services AG contended that the registration of these marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, relying on its prior use and registration of the trade mark EUROPOL in Switzerland for similar financial services.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's proposed trade marks were substantially identical with or deceptively similar to Forbo Financial Services AG's earlier trade mark, and whether the registration of the applicant's marks would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. This involved an assessment of the marks themselves, the goods and services for which they were registered and sought to be registered, and the circumstances in which they would be used.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Sydwood Ltd v. The Commissioner of Patents* and *The Shell Company of Australia Ltd v. Rohm & Haas Company*. It found that the word "EUROPOL" was the dominant and distinctive element of both the earlier and the applied-for marks. Considering the identity of the word element and the similarity of the services, the Tribunal concluded that there was a real likelihood of deception or confusion among the relevant public, particularly given the international nature of financial services. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's mark was not merely a descriptive term but a coined word, which carried a higher degree of distinctiveness.

The Tribunal upheld the opposition and refused the registration of both trade mark applications.