Rocket Trademarks Pty Ltd v Cunliffe Management Pty Ltd

Rocket Trademarks Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to register the trademark "ROCKET" for use in relation to various goods and services, including computer software, online advertising, and business management services. Cunliffe Management Pty Ltd (the respondent) opposed the registration, arguing that the proposed mark was too similar to its own registered trademark "ROCKET" for use in relation to computer software and related services. The matter came before Jock McDonagh J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's proposed trademark "ROCKET" was deceptively similar to the respondent's registered trademark "ROCKET" for the purposes of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). This involved an assessment of the degree of resemblance between the two marks and the likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the origin of the goods and services.

His Honour applied the established principles for assessing deceptive similarity, which require a comparison of the marks as a whole, considering their visual, aural, and conceptual similarities. The Court noted that both marks consisted of the identical word "ROCKET" and were intended for use in relation to overlapping goods and services, particularly computer software and business services. His Honour found that there was a high degree of similarity between the marks and a significant likelihood that consumers would be confused into believing that the goods and services offered under the applicant's mark originated from, or were connected with, the respondent.

Consequently, the Court upheld the opposition and ordered that the application for registration of the trademark "ROCKET" be refused.