subject: Too Many Cooks Spoil the Mark? [print this page] WHIRLPOOL'S OBJECTION: WHIRLPOOL'S OBJECTION:
In Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v Huilong Electrical Appliances Pty Ltd [2010] ATMO 79 (25 August 2010), several grounds of objection were raised by Whirlpool.
Firstly, KitchenMaid was very similar in appearance to Whirlpool's mark, KITCHENAID. The two marks were also visually and conceptually similar.
Secondly, Whirlpool claimed that KITCHENAID had already gained a reputation and image in the eyes of the consumers. Whirlpool was worried that this would further deceive and confuse its consumers.
Thirdly, Whirpool claimed that Huilong did not have a bona fide intention to use the trademark.
COURT'S FINDINGS:
The popularity gained by the KITCHENAID trade mark in Australia as a manufacturer of kitchen appliances was recognised by the Court. The court stated that the mere omission and inclusion of a letter in the centre of one of the trade marks is likely to be easily overlooked by a purchaser of kitchen appliances.
Moreover, the goods manufactured by KitchenMaid were also found to be closely associated to the services provided by Whirlpool's KITCHENAID.
Based on this, the court found that the use of the mark KitchenMaid on Huilong's appliances is most likely to deceive customers and cause confusion.
Whirlpool was therefore successful in preventing the registration of Huilong's KitchenMaid mark based on these reservations.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:
While registering a trademark it is essential to conduct proper due diligence. This saves resources at the very outset. The stakes become higher when a prior mark exists that has already gained popularity. Under such circumstances, the applicant might risk a refusal for registration of its mark.
