Sentia Australia Pty Ltd and Michael Cindric v Isentia Pty Limited

This matter concerned an opposition by Sentia Australia Pty Ltd and Michael Cindric (the Opponents) to a trade mark application by Isentia Pty Limited (the Applicant) for the mark "SENTIA" in classes 35 and 42. The Opponents contended that the Applicant's mark should not be registered because its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, relying on the reputation acquired by their own "SENTIA" mark in Australia as at the priority date of the opposed application, 18 December 2012.

The court was required to determine whether the Opponents had established that the "SENTIA" mark had acquired a reputation in Australia by 18 December 2012, and if so, whether the use of the Applicant's opposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among a significant section of the public, particularly purchasers of technology and technology-related services.

The court found that the Opponents had provided sufficient evidence to establish a reputation in the "SENTIA" brand by the relevant date. This evidence included the continuous use of the brand in Australia since 2008, significant website traffic, a top ranking in Google searches for "sentia," nominations for business awards, advertising in industry publications, and the acquisition of well-known clients. The court also noted that the opposed mark closely resembled the Opponents' trade mark, sharing the distinctive word "SENTIA," and that there was evidence of actual confusion, including correspondence from the Applicant's customers and suppliers directed to the Opponents, and discussions initiated by the Applicant regarding a potential purchase of the "SENTIA" brand. These factors collectively supported the conclusion that the use of the opposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion.