Sojo Pty Ltd v Saltash Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2022] ATMO 191
•31 October 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sojo Pty Ltd v Saltash Pty Ltd [2022] ATMO 191
[2022] ATMO 191
31 October 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sojo Pty Ltd opposed the registration of the trade mark application number 2063815, for the mark "tradieswear & device" in Class 35, by Saltash Pty Ltd and Anstal Enterprises Pty Ltd. The matter came before Blake Knowles.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark, "TRADIES" (registration number 1000000, Class 35), such that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as the nature of the goods and services in respect of which the marks were used.
Blake Knowles determined that the marks were not deceptively similar. The court considered the dominant features of each mark, noting that while "tradies" was common to both, the addition of "& device" to the applicant's mark, and the distinctiveness of the opponent's mark as a whole, created sufficient difference. The court applied the principles of deceptive similarity as established in trade mark law, focusing on the overall impression conveyed by each mark to the ordinary consumer, taking into account imperfect recollection. The court found that the differences were sufficient to avoid a likelihood of deception or confusion in the marketplace.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark, "TRADIES" (registration number 1000000, Class 35), such that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. This involved an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, as well as the nature of the goods and services in respect of which the marks were used.
Blake Knowles determined that the marks were not deceptively similar. The court considered the dominant features of each mark, noting that while "tradies" was common to both, the addition of "& device" to the applicant's mark, and the distinctiveness of the opponent's mark as a whole, created sufficient difference. The court applied the principles of deceptive similarity as established in trade mark law, focusing on the overall impression conveyed by each mark to the ordinary consumer, taking into account imperfect recollection. The court found that the differences were sufficient to avoid a likelihood of deception or confusion in the marketplace.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Intellectual Property
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
4
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020