Schott Aktiengesellschaft v Ian Sumner

Schott Aktiengesellschaft opposed the registration of the trade mark application SINGLE SHOT, filed by Ian Sumner for solar collectors (heating) in class 11. The opposition was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The applicant did not appear at the hearing or file written submissions.

The delegate was required to determine whether the opponent had established grounds for opposition under sections 44 and 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). Specifically, the delegate had to consider whether the applicant's mark SINGLE SHOT was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to any registered or pending trade marks of the opponent for similar goods or services, and whether the applicant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The delegate found that while the goods were similar and the opponent's registered trade marks had earlier priority dates, the marks were not deceptively similar. The delegate reasoned that the overall impression of the marks must be considered, and that consumers purchasing solar collectors would likely exercise a degree of attention and not rely solely on aural impressions or word of mouth. The delegate noted that the opponent's marks, such as SCHOTT, created an impression of a surname or business entity, whereas the applicant's mark SINGLE SHOT consisted of common English words with an obvious meaning referring to a functional aspect of the goods. Therefore, the delegate concluded that there was no real likelihood of deception or confusion in the marketplace.

The opposition was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the opponent.