Strasburger Enterprises Inc v Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. ("Nestle") opposed the registration of five trade mark applications by Strasburger Enterprises Inc. for the word "QUIX". The applications covered a range of goods including pharmaceutical preparations, food items in classes 29 and 30, beverages in class 32, and retail services. Nestle's opposition was based on grounds of deceptive similarity to its existing registrations for "NES-QUIK", "NESTLE('S) QUIK", and "QUIK" under sections 33 and 28 of the Trade Marks Act 1955, as well as a claim of proprietorship.

The Delegate was required to determine whether the trade mark "QUIX" was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to Nestle's registered marks, and whether the goods and services covered by the applications were the same, of the same description, or closely related to those for which Nestle held registrations. This involved assessing the visual and aural similarities between the marks, considering the nature of the goods and services, the likely consumers, and the surrounding circumstances of trade. The Delegate also had to consider the potential for confusion or deception arising from the use of the marks in the marketplace.

The Delegate found that while the marks "QUIK" and "QUIX" were not substantially identical, they were deceptively similar when applied to the same or closely related goods. The Delegate noted that the "QUIK" element was a strong and essential part of Nestle's registrations, and that the absence of a house mark on "QUIX" could lead consumers to believe it was a Nestle product. However, the Delegate concluded that the marks were not deceptively similar when applied to goods that were clearly different in nature, use, and trade channels. The Delegate also found that the retail services offered by Strasburger Enterprises Inc. were not deceptively similar to Nestle's goods, and that certain goods, such as dietetic substances and sugar, were not of the same description as Nestle's registered goods.

Ultimately, the Delegate allowed the opposition in relation to certain goods, specifically those where there was a direct overlap or a finding of deceptive similarity, such as milk and milk products, cocoa, coffee, tea, and syrups for making beverages. However, the opposition was dismissed in relation to other goods and services where the Delegate found no deceptive similarity or no overlap in the description of goods, including pharmaceutical preparations, meat, fish, poultry, preserved fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, preserves, mineral and aerated waters, non-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks, fruit juices, and retail services.