Case: Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCAFC 1020 ; (1999) 93 FCR 365
Outcome: followed
The relevant principles are gathered together by French J (as he then was) (with whom Tamberlin J agreed) in Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCAFC 1020 ; (1999) 93 FCR 365 at [49] and [50] (pp 382 383) as follows: 49 The question of fact for the Court on an appeal from the Registrar in a case of alleged deceptive similarity between marks was posed by the High Court in Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton &amp; Co Ltd at 658: "whether in fact there is such a reasonable probability of deception or confusion that the use of the new mark and title should be restrained." The reference to "restrained" reflects the fact that unlike this case the Australian Woollen Mills Ltd case was an appeal in an infringement action. The judgment of the likelihood of deception or confusion is a very practical one and what has long been accepted as the proper approach to making that judgment was set out in Australian Woollen Mills Ltd . It requires assessment of the effect of the challenged mark upon the minds of potential customers. Impression or recollection taken away from the point at which the challenged mark is observed will be the basis of any belief about a connection between the new and the old marks. The effect of spoken description must be considered. What confusion or deception may be expected is to be based upon the behaviour of ordinary people. As potential buyers of goods they are not to be credited with high perception or habitual caution. Exceptional carelessness or stupidity may be disregarded. The question ultimately is not susceptible of much discussion (at 659): "It depends on a combination of visual impression and judicial estimation of the effect likely to be produced in the course of the ordinary conduct of affairs." 50 In Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd at 594-595, which concerned the 1905 Act, Kitto J set out a number of propositions which have frequently been quoted and applied to the 1955 Act. The essential elements of those propositions continue to apply to the issue of deceptive similarity under the 1995 Act. Applied also to service marks and absent the imposition of an onus upon the applicant they may be restated as follows: (i) To show that a trade mark is deceptively similar to another it is necessary to show a real tangible danger of deception or confusion occurring. A mere possibility is not sufficient. (ii) A trade mark is likely to cause confusion if the result of its use will be that a number of persons are caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products or closely related products and services come from the same source. It is enough if the ordinary person entertains a reasonable doubt. It may be interpolated that this is another way of expressing the proposition that the trade mark is likely to cause confusion if there is a real likelihood that some people will wonder or be left in doubt about whether the two sets of products or the products and services in question come from the same source. (iii) In considering whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion all surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration. These include the circumstances in which the marks will be used, the circumstances in which the goods or services will be bought and sold and the character of the probable acquirers of the goods and services. (iv) The rights of the parties are to be determined as at the date of the application. (v) The question of deceptive similarity must be considered in respect of all goods or services coming within the specification in the application and in respect of which registration is desired, not only in respect of those goods or services on which it is proposed to immediately use the mark. The question is not limited to whether a particular use will give rise to deception or confusion. It must be based upon what the applicant can do if registration is obtained. In respect of the last proposition, Mason J observed in Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Co Inc [1973] HCA 43 ; (1973) 129 CLR 353 at 362: "the question whether there is a likelihood of confusion is to be answered, not by reference to the manner in which the respondent has used its mark in the past, but by reference to the use to which it can properly put the mark. The issue is whether that use would give rise to a real danger of confusion."