Speedo Holdings B.V. v Beijing Hongguang Dongying Sports Training Co Ltd

Speedo Holdings B.V. (the Opponent) opposed the registration of a trade mark application by Beijing Hongguang Dongying Sports Training Co Ltd (the Applicant). The trade mark in question, bearing the mark "Sdeepo" and Chinese characters, was sought for registration across multiple classes, including swimwear and sports-related goods and services. The opposition was heard by Blake Knowles, a Hearing Officer and Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issues before the Hearing Officer were whether the Applicant's proposed trade mark was likely to cause confusion with the Opponent's well-established "SPEEDO" brand, thereby infringing section 60 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), and whether the mark should be refused on other grounds pressed by the Opponent. The Opponent bore the onus of proving its grounds of opposition on the balance of probabilities, with rights assessed as at the relevant date.

The Hearing Officer considered evidence from both parties. The Opponent provided extensive evidence of its long-standing and widespread use of the "SPEEDO" mark in relation to swimwear and a broad range of associated goods and services, supported by significant revenue and promotional expenditure figures. The Applicant, conversely, asserted that its mark was created in 2019 and explained the meaning of its components, arguing that the marks were dissimilar in appearance, sound, and idea. The Hearing Officer found that the Opponent had not established a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer determined that the ground of opposition under section 60 was not established. As the Opponent had not proven any of the grounds of opposition, the Hearing Officer decided to register the trade mark. The Applicant was awarded costs against the Opponent, as costs generally follow the event.