Tripp Limited v Import Manteau Pty Ltd

Tripp Limited (the opponent) opposed the registration of a trade mark application by Import Manteau Pty Ltd (the applicant). The dispute concerned whether the applicant's proposed trade mark, "Tripmate," was substantially identical or deceptively similar to the opponent's registered trade mark, "TRIPP," for goods in Class 18, including leather goods and travel accessories. The matter came before Alison Windsor, a Hearings Officer for Trade Marks and Designs.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether the trade marks "TRIPP" and "Tripmate" were substantially identical, and second, whether they were deceptively similar. The opponent argued that the marks shared the essential feature "TRIP" and that the overall impression was similar, leading to substantial identity. Regarding deceptive similarity, the opponent contended that the ordinary purchaser might be confused into believing the applicant's goods originated from the opponent, citing the tendency to emphasise the beginning of a trade mark and the Australian public's inclination to slur or abbreviate word endings.

The Hearings Officer found that the trade marks were neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar. Applying established tests for trade mark comparison, the court concluded that the similarities between "TRIPP" and "Tripmate" were not sufficient to render them substantially identical. Furthermore, the court determined that the differences between the marks were significant enough to avoid deceptive similarity, meaning an ordinary purchaser would not likely be confused as to the origin of the goods. Consequently, the opponent's opposition under section 44 of the relevant legislation was unsuccessful.

The Hearings Officer directed that the applicant's trade mark application could proceed to registration one month from the date of the decision, subject to any appeal. The Hearings Officer also awarded costs against the opponent in favour of the applicant, noting that the amounts would likely be minimal due to the applicant's failure to provide evidence and appear at the hearing.