Under Armour, Inc v Anthony James Adaimy

Under Armour, Inc. (the applicant) sought to register a trade mark for the word "UA" in relation to clothing and footwear. Anthony James Adaimy (the opponent) opposed this registration, arguing that the mark was not distinctive and that its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trade mark "UA" was capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of other traders, and whether the use of the mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, given the opponent's prior use of the same mark in relation to similar goods. The Court was required to consider the evidence of use and recognition of the mark by the relevant public.

Justice Nicole Worth found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving that the mark "UA" was inherently adapted to distinguish its goods. The Court noted that "UA" was a common abbreviation and that evidence of use did not demonstrate sufficient distinctiveness at the time of filing the application. Consequently, the Court concluded that the registration of the trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The Court ordered that the application for registration of the trade mark "UA" be dismissed.