Volvo Trademark Holding AG v Vovo Corporate Co Ltd

Volvo Trademark Holding AB (the applicant) sought to register the trade mark 'VOVO' in Australia for a range of goods and services, including motor vehicles and related services. Vovo Corporate Co Ltd (the respondent) opposed this application, arguing that the proposed mark was substantially identical or deceptively similar to its registered trade mark 'VOLVO' for similar goods and services. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark 'VOVO' was, within the meaning of section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth), substantially identical or deceptively similar to the respondent's registered trade mark 'VOLVO'. This required an assessment of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities between the two marks, considered in relation to the goods and services for which registration was sought.

Justice Tracey Berger applied the established principles for assessing deceptive similarity, considering the marks as a whole and the potential for confusion among the relevant public. Her Honour found that while there were visual and aural differences, the marks shared a significant degree of similarity, particularly in their initial letters and overall sound. Crucially, the Court considered the goods and services to be closely related, increasing the likelihood of consumers assuming a connection between the two trade marks. The Court concluded that the applicant's proposed mark was deceptively similar to the respondent's registered mark.

The Court ordered that the application for registration of the trade mark 'VOVO' be refused.