Brands Limited v Bed Bath 'N' Table Pty Limited

NOTE: SALES FIGURES IN PARAGRAPH [323] HAVE BEEN REDACTED FOR COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY REASONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-0971

[2023] NZHC 1766

UNDER

the Trade Marks Act 2002

IN THE MATTER

of Trade Mark Registration No. 1011884 (BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE)

BETWEEN

BRANDS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

BED BATH AND BEYOND LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

BBB RETAIL LIMITED
Third Plaintiff

AND

BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE PTY LIMITED

First Defendant

BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE NZ PTY LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing:	25 July 2022–12 August 2022
Counsel:	K T Glover, J Oliver-Hood and J J Kim for Plaintiffs G F Arthur and L Carter for Defendants
Judgment:	7 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

BRANDS LTD & ORS v BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE PTY LTD & ANOR [2023] NZHC 1766 [7 July 2023]

Table of Contents

Para Nos

BED, BATH, TABLE AND BEYOND: A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY............ [10]
Early days........................................................................................................... [10]

The 1994 trade mark applications.................................................................... [14]

The narrative resumes....................................................................................... [25]

The 2014 trade mark applications.................................................................... [30]

The dispute begins............................................................................................. [36]

Logos................................................................................................................... [45]

BBT[46]

BBB[47]

INVALIDITY..................................................................................................... [54]

The Part 2 grounds relied on here and the relationship between them        [56]

The invalidity claim based on s 25(1)(b).......................................................... [65]
Which of the 2014 trade marks has priority?[70]

The admissibility of BBB’s survey evidence[91] The structure of the survey and the potential for priming  [103]

An area participants would not otherwise consider  [104]

Question order effects  [105]
Question wording effects  [106]
The absence of controls  [107]
The survey population  [108]
Conclusion on admissibility  [109]

Does BBT’s 2014 trade mark relate to goods and services that are the
same as, or similar to those covered by BBB’s 1994 trade mark?[115]

Confusing similarity?[124]

Simple similarity  [128]
The disclaimer and non-distinctiveness  [134]
Why does non-distinctiveness matter?  [148]
Evidence of actual confusion  [155]

My own experience  [170]

Conclusion  [174]

Section 25(1)(c)................................................................................................. [177]

Honest concurrent use..................................................................................... [181]

The extent of pre-existing use[187]
Degree of confusion likely to ensue[197]

Honesty of use[198]

The relevant standard  [198]
Honesty of use in fact  [200]

Proof of confusion[216]

Relative inconvenience[217]

Conclusion[221]

Section 17(1)(a)................................................................................................. [223]

Reputation[231]
Deception and confusion: principles[235]
Relevant market and circumstances of trade[237]

Likelihood of deception and confusion by a substantial number of persons [238]

Section 17(1)(b)................................................................................................ [247] Is honest concurrent use available in a s 17 case?......................................................... [249]

Discretion.......................................................................................................... [278]

INFRINGEMENT.......................................................................................... [279]
Section 93.......................................................................................................... [282]

Section 89(1)(c)................................................................................................. [286]

Section 95 – own name defence...................................................................... [291]

Can a company avail itself of s 95?[293]

Honest practices?[303]

PASSING OFF AND BREACH OF THE FTA............................................. [307]

Relevant principles........................................................................................... [311]

Passing off[312]

Fair Trading Act[316]

BBB’s claims and my approach to them........................................................ [319]

Goodwill............................................................................................................ [321]

Misrepresentation............................................................................................ [329]

Absence of distinctiveness[331]
Get-up and the colour green[337]

Honest concurrent use..................................................................................... [342]

Conclusion........................................................................................................ [345]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES........................................................................ [347]

COUNTERCLAIMS...................................................................................... [355]

SUMMARY AND RESULT........................................................................... [356]

[1]    For over 15 years the New Zealand owned companies trading as Bed Bath &…