GoPro MAX vs MAXCAM: Not Too Similar
- Dr Lachlan Wilson
- Aug 8, 2024
- 2 min read
Updated: Sep 25, 2024
GoPro Inc objected to the registration of the MAXCAM trade mark by Shenzhen Maisi Digital for goods such as camera bags, tripods and lenses. The opposition included several grounds, particularly s44 that the application is too similar to an existing trade mark GOPRO for similar goods
GoPro provided evidence of sales, social media accounts, websites (including historical we images from the Wayback Machine). To succeed, GoPro needed to show that their trade mark had an earlier date, was deceptively similar and for similar goods.
The comparison between trade marks must consider the look and the spoken sound of the trade marks, The verbal description being more important if the goods are likely to be asked for in person. There must be a real tangible danger the the imperfect recollection of a notional buyer would be deceived or confused in their normal purchasing circumstances that the two products came from the same source.
The comparison of the trade marks also is made in the context of the comparison of the goods to which they are applied, since the closer the relationship between the goods, the more likely any similarity in the trade marks will prove to be deceptive. Additionally, the trade marks office noted that any element of a trade mark such as the word MAX that is descriptive may not tend to cause confusion about the source of the goods because it calls to mind the nature of the product rather than its source.
The Australian Trade Marks Office concluded that the differences were significant and there was not a real tangible danger of deception or confusion, the Trade Marks are not deceptively similar and the word GoPro is a key visual, aural and conceptual feature of difference so the opposition by GoPro failed.
2024 ATMO 130
