Puma opposed registration of the below trade mark covering clothing in Class 25
Puma referred to three of its prior registrations (shown below) which cover the same goods as the application as grounds for rejection of the application under section 44.
Puma argued that the common ‘P’ and wildcat picture elements of the respective trade marks would be likely to lead to consumer deception or confusion. The Hearing Officer did not agree, noting that nothing had been presented to him to support the view that a consumer would see the applicant’s trade mark as related to any of the prior Puma marks.
To support its opposition under section 60, Puma led evidence of its reputation in Australia. This evidence established ‘a very considerable and pervasive reputation in Australia’ in respect of its trade marks, including the wildcat head image.
However, the Hearing Officer then had to consider whether, as a result of the reputation, consumer deception or confusion was likely. The Hearing Officer considered that the lack of similarity between the respective trade marks made any deception or confusion unlikely.
The opposition therefore failed and the application will proceed to registration.
To view the Office decision, click here.
This article is an extract from Spruson & Ferguson’s monthly summary of Australian Trade Mark Office decisions. You can view the entire month’s summary here.
Principal / Solicitor / Trade Mark Attorney
Litigation Team, Trade Marks Team
Associate / Trade Mark Attorney
Trade Marks Team