Storage King Pty Ltd and Storage King Services Pty Ltd v King Arthurs Storage

Storage King Pty Ltd and Storage King Services Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought interlocutory injunctions against King Arthurs Storage (the respondent) to restrain alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct. The applicants operate self-storage facilities and alleged that the respondent, a competitor, was using a name and branding that was confusingly similar to their own, thereby infringing their trade mark and engaging in conduct likely to deceive or mislead consumers. The matter came before Justice Robert Wilson of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent's name and branding constituted a breach of the applicants' registered trade mark, specifically trade mark number 1370080 for "STORAGE KING", and whether the respondent's conduct was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). The Court was required to assess the likelihood of confusion among consumers given the similarities in names and services offered.

Justice Wilson considered the principles of trade mark infringement and misleading and deceptive conduct. He noted that for trade mark infringement, the question was whether the respondent's use of "King Arthurs Storage" was likely to deceive or cause confusion. In relation to misleading and deceptive conduct, the Court applied the test of whether the ordinary and reasonable member of the public, when confronted with the respondent's name and advertising, would be led to believe that the respondent's business was connected with or endorsed by the applicants. The Court found that the visual and aural similarities between "STORAGE KING" and "King Arthurs Storage", coupled with the identical nature of the services provided, created a significant risk of confusion and deception.

The Court granted the interlocutory injunctions sought by the applicants, restraining the respondent from using the name "King Arthurs Storage" or any other name or mark likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers into believing there was a connection with the applicants' business. The costs of the application were reserved.