In a decision handed down on 28 September 2018, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld the right to register the name Perth Martial Arts Centre even though the name Perth Martial Arts Academy was already registered, on the basis they were not similar enough to prevent registration.
The case is a reminder that when it comes to comparing business names, a common sense approach as to what constitutes an identical, confusing or misleading business name won’t get you far.
The case arose after Brazilian Combat Pty Ltd (Combat) registered the business name Perth Martial Arts Centre with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission in 2016 (ASIC). Shortly afterwards, Mr Victor Stuart (Stuart) lodged an application for review, on the basis that Combat’s business name was too similar to the business name Perth Martial Arts Academy which he had registered in 2006. Stuart argued that Combat’s name was:
In reviewing the decision, the AAT conceded that one of the objectives of the Act is indeed to avoid confusion by ensuring identical or nearly identical business names are not registered. However, they also noted that ASIC has no discretion in deciding how to achieve that objective – they are obliged to follow the rules set down by the relevant minister, which determine what is ‘identical’ or ‘nearly identical’ (Rules). If ASIC receives a paid-up application from an eligible entity and the name is neither identical nor nearly identical to another, then ASIC must register it.
Under the Rules, a name will be identical or nearly identical to another if:
The Tribunal conceded that:
Unfortunately for the Applicant, whether the two business names are identical or nearly identical is not simply a matter of common sense based on a simple comparison of the extent of the similarities between two business names. If one were to ask a person on the street whether the business names Perth Martial Arts Academy and Perth Martial Arts Centre were identical or nearly identical, they may very well agree that they were.
Instead, the Tribunal was compelled to defer to the existing schema set out in the Rules, which pays no heed to the ‘plain and ordinary’ meaning of a word in contemporary parlance, and instead adopts a far narrower approach that sets out an exhaustive list of words considered to be “identical”. The list considers institute, academy, school and college to be the same, but not centre.
On this basis, the Tribunal was precluded from finding the business names to be identical or nearly identical, and affirmed the decision to register Perth Martial Arts Centre.
In making the decision, the Tribunal considered it worth noting that while academy and centre are not considered the same in a generic context, they are deemed identical when paired with the word dance (i.e. academy of dance, dance centre). The Tribunal observed that martial arts is an industry not entirely dissimilar from dance and suggested that Stuart may wish to consider lobbying the minister in this regard.
The decision is a reminder that when it comes to assessing competing business names, do not rely on a common sense approach to whether a name is similar or identical. Key takeaways are:
Authors: Darren Pereira & Georgia Milne
Darren Pereira, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0487
Dan Pearce, Partner
T: +61 3 9321 9840
Trent Taylor, Partner
T: +61 7 3135 0668
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.