The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia v Association of International Certified Professional Accountants

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (the Opponent) opposed an application for registration of a trade mark by the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (the Applicant). The matter was heard by Jock McDonagh, a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Opponent relied on several grounds of opposition, including sections 42(b), 43, 44, 60, and 62A of the relevant Act, with specific reference to regulations extending these grounds to Integrated Register of Designs and Applications (IRDAs).

The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the Applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to any of the Opponent's registered trade marks, and whether the goods and services for which the Applicant sought registration were identical or similar to those covered by the Opponent's registrations. Specifically, the delegate had to determine if the Applicant's mark, when considered in light of the Opponent's earlier registered marks, was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers, as defined by section 10 of the Act.

In assessing deceptive similarity, the delegate applied the principles established in *Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd*, which dictates that marks should not be compared side-by-side. Instead, the assessment focuses on the impression left on the mind of a potential customer based on recollection, rather than precise visual detail. The delegate noted that the Opponent did not assert substantial identity between the marks, and the assessment therefore centred on the likelihood of deception or confusion arising from the resemblance between the marks, considering how they might be remembered by ordinary persons.