[3.7.4] CLOSELY RELATED GOODS OR SERVICES

As noted above in [3.7.3] above, a section 44 ground of opposition may also be upheld in circumstances in which one trade mark specification contains “goods” and the other contains “services” and such goods and services are found to be “closely related”.

The words “closely related” imply there is a form of relationship between the goods and services.(1)  And because of the nature of this ‘close relationship’ confusion is likely to arise.(2)

The following general principles have been observed in assessing whether goods and services are “closely related”:

As with ‘similar goods’, in deciding whether goods and services are closely related although prior decisions can be highly relevant and encourage consistency it must be noted that the nature of trade changes over time.  Hence what are “closely related” goods and services can also change.  Recent case law can therefore be of more assistance than older case law.

Some recent examples of goods and services which have been found to be “closely related” are:

MAIN PAGE

1. Registrar of Trade Marks v. Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCA 1020 at paragraph 37
2. Caterpillar Loader Hire (Holdings) Pty Ltd v. Caterpillar Tractor Co 1 IPR 265 at 276
3. Caterpillar Loader Hire (Holdings) Pty Ltd v. Caterpillar Tractor Co 1 IPR 265 at 276
4. Shanahan’s Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (5th ed. 2012), Lawbook Co, Mark Davison and Ian Horak at pp.307 to 308
5. Ceramiche Caesar S.p.A. v. Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd [2015] ATMO 83
6. Ceramiche Caesar S.p.A. v. Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd [2015] ATMO 83
7. Christian v. Societe Des Produits Nestle SA and Ors (No. 2) [2015] FCAFC 153