Velocity Conveyancing Pty Ltd v Velocity Legal Pty Ltd

Velocity Conveyancing Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Velocity Legal Pty Ltd (the respondent) to restrain the respondent from using the name "Velocity Legal" and the associated logo. The applicant, which had been operating as a conveyancing business under the name "Velocity Conveyancing" since 2007, alleged that the respondent's adoption of a similar name and logo for its legal services business, which commenced in 2022, constituted misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's conduct was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers as to the origin of its services, thereby infringing the applicant's rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and at common law for passing off. Specifically, the court had to consider the degree of similarity between the names and logos, the nature of the businesses, the respective clienteles, and the likelihood of consumers mistakenly believing that the respondent's services were affiliated with, or originated from, the applicant.

In determining the application, the court applied the principles of interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court assessed the visual and phonetic similarities between "Velocity Conveyancing" and "Velocity Legal," as well as the shared use of the word "Velocity" and a similar colour scheme in their respective logos. It considered the potential for confusion in the marketplace, particularly given that both businesses operated within the broader legal and property services sector. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the likelihood of deception and that the potential damage to the applicant's reputation and goodwill weighed in favour of granting interlocutory relief.

The court ordered that the respondent be restrained from using the name "Velocity Legal" and its associated logo pending the final determination of the proceedings.