Trade mark application 637669(42) in the name of Trevor Clarke Holdings Pty Ltd and opposition by United Artists Corporation to the registration of this trade mark

This case concerns an opposition by United Artists Corporation to the trade mark application 637669(42) filed by Trevor Clarke Holdings Pty Ltd for motor vehicle retail services. The application sought registration of a device mark featuring a signboard with the words "Where we Really care for you" and a cat-like figure. The opposition was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, and the proceedings were governed by the Trade Marks Act 1955.

The legal issues before the delegate were whether Trevor Clarke Holdings was the proprietor of the trade mark, whether the mark was distinctive of its services, whether its registration would be contrary to section 33 of the Act due to deceptive similarity with existing registered marks owned by United Artists Corporation, and whether the mark should be denied registration on the grounds of likely deception or confusion, or otherwise not being entitled to protection in a court of justice. The opposition was based on the extensive use and renown of the "Pink Panther" character by United Artists Corporation and its associated companies.

The delegate dismissed the ground relating to proprietorship, finding that while there was an inconsistency in the applicant's evidence regarding the date of use, it was speculative to conclude that another party had superior rights. Regarding distinctiveness, the delegate applied the test from *Clarke Equipment Co. v Registrar of Trade Marks*, determining that a drawing of a cat or panther had no direct reference to motor vehicle retail services and thus was capable of distinguishing the applicant's services. The delegate found the application mark to be deceptively similar to two of the opponent's registered marks, specifically registration 392226 (class 16 goods) and 632287 (advertising and promotional services), considering the public recognition of the Pink Panther character and the potential for the applicant to use the mark in pink. However, the delegate ultimately dismissed the opposition under section 33, finding that goods in class 16 and services in class 35 were not closely related to, or of the same description as, motor vehicle retail services in class 42, applying established criteria regarding the nature, uses, and trade channels of the respective goods and services.