When two brands share a common name, the legal dispute often shifts to how consumers perceive that name within the context of the marketplace. The recent decision by Justice Needham in Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750 provides an image of this dynamic, particularly within the fast-moving fashion industry. The case centered on a dispute between an established international denim house and a burgeoning Australian online retailer. It ultimately hinged on whether the “plus” sign between two names indicates a collaboration or a single, unified brand identity.
This ruling is particularly significant for brand owners because it tackles the modern phenomenon of “collabs”, i.e. strategic partnerships that have become the “new normal” in fashion marketing. While the law of trade marks is rooted in protecting consumers from confusion, this case demonstrates that the threshold for proving such confusion is often higher than many brand owners might anticipate, especially when dealing with personal names and industry-wide trends.
Background of the Conflict
The appellant, Paige LLC, is a California-based fashion house known globally for its premium denim. Founded by Paige Adams-Gellar, the brand PAIGE has a long-standing presence in Australia, sold through major retailers like David Jones and The Iconic. The respondent, Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd, is an Australian online retailer of women’s fashion. In 2020, the respondent applied to register two trade marks, i.e. a composite mark featuring the words “Sage + Paige” against a pink disc, and the words “Sage + Paige” in a stylized serif font.
Paige LLC opposed these applications, primarily relying on section 44 and section 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). They argued that because their registered mark “PAIGE” was contained entirely within the respondent’s marks, “consumers would be caused to wonder” if there was a commercial connection. Specifically, Paige LLC contended that a modern shopper, familiar with brand collaborations, would assume “Sage + Paige” represented a partnership between PAIGE and another designer or brand named Sage.
Deceptive Similarity and the Collaboration Argument
The first major hurdle was section 44, which deals with deceptive similarity. The legal test here is not whether the marks are identical when placed side-by-side. Instead, the court looks at the “imperfect recollection” of a consumer who has seen the earlier mark and then encounters the later one. Justice Needham had to decide if there was a “real, tangible danger” that consumers would be confused about the source of the goods.
Paige LLC’s argument was sophisticated, i.e. they claimed the fashion industry’s obsession with collaborations has trained consumers to see the “name + name” format as an indicator of a joint venture. They pointed to their own previous collaborations, such as “PAIGE + RHW” with Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. They argued that the respondent’s use of “Paige” as the second word would lead shoppers to think Sage was the primary brand collaborating with the well-known PAIGE denim label.
However, the Court was not persuaded. Justice Needham observed that while collaborations are a real trend, so is the use of two given names to form a single brand identity. Examples like “Bec & Bridge,” “Camilla and Marc,” or “Dolce & Gabbana” show that a pair of names often represents a single entity. The Court found that the uniform stylization of the respondent’s mark, where “Sage” and “Paige” were given equal visual weight and font, indicated a singular brand rather than two distinct brands “working together”.
The Power (and Limitation) of a Personal Name
A central point of discussion was the nature of the name “Paige” itself. Paige LLC argued that their mark was inherently distinctive. The respondent, conversely, argued that “Paige” is a relatively common woman’s name, and that consumers are less likely to be confused when a trade mark consists of a name that many people share.
The Court took judicial notice of the fact that “Paige” is a recognizable given name with no other primary meaning. Unlike a “fancy” or invented word, a common name carries less weight as an “essential feature” when it is combined with other words. Justice Needham noted that “Sage” actually has a more nuanced impression because it is also a herb and a color. By placing “Sage” first and using a “plus” sign rather than the “x” typically used in collaborations, the respondent had created a “distinctive flavor” that moved the mark away from the PAIGE brand.
Reputation in the Digital Age
The second ground of opposition fell under section 60, which requires a brand to prove it has a significant reputation in Australia and that use of the new mark would cause confusion because of that reputation. Paige LLC provided evidence of over $8 million in sales to Australian distributors between 2015 and 2019, along with celebrity endorsements from the likes of Beyonce and the Hemsworth brothers.
That said, the Court found that while PAIGE had a modest reputation in Australia, it was largely confined to high-end denim. Justice Needham noted a sharp contrast between the two brands, i.e. PAIGE is a premium, soft luxury brand with jeans priced significantly higher than the fast fashion offerings of Sage + Paige. This difference in price point, style, and target market further reduced the likelihood of confusion.
The Court also highlighted that despite the borderless nature of the Internet, Paige LLC failed to show a strong, targeted presence in Australia. Global sales figures of $580 million were impressive, but the Australian portion was relatively small. The failure to track country-specific marketing data or show significant “in the wild” use by ordinary Australians, as opposed to just celebrities, meant the reputation was not strong enough to block the respondent’s marks.
Key Takeaways for Brand Owners
The Sage + Paige decision offers several vital lessons for intellectual property strategy in the modern era.
Firstly, just because your brand name appears in another mark alongside a “plus” or “and” sign does not automatically make it deceptively similar. Courts will look for uniform stylization. If the new mark looks like a single, cohesive brand, the “collaboration” argument may fail.
Secondly, if your trade mark is a common given name, you must accept that other traders may use that name in combination with others. Unless your name is exceptionally unique or invented, your monopoly over it is limited.
Thirdly, confusion is less likely when two brands operate at vastly different price points. A “premium” brand and a “fast fashion” brand may use similar names without consumers assuming they come from the same source, as their critical faculties are stimulated by the price and shopping environment.
Lastly, for international brands, global fame is not enough. To succeed in Australia under section 60, you need specific evidence of local engagement, such as Australian website traffic, localized marketing spend, and sales data that shows the brand is known to the ordinary person, not just the fashion elite.
Conclusion
That said, the Federal Court’s dismissal of the appeal confirms that the “name + name” naming convention is a well-established and legitimate way to build a brand in Australia. While Paige LLC is undeniably a powerhouse in the denim world, the Court was careful not to grant it a monopoly that would stifle other businesses using a common name in a different context. This decision reinforces the principle that deceptive similarity is an objective test based on the total impression of the mark, not just the presence of a single shared word. For new businesses, it provides a degree of comfort that choosing a catchy, multi-name brand is a viable path, provided the overall identity is distinct from existing players.
Contact us to learn more about how LexGeneris can assist you with all your intellectual property needs. You can also schedule a no-cost consultation with our team of expert IP Attorneys Australia, IP Attorneys India, and IP Attorneys New Zealand
