The Federal Court of Australia’s decision in CCMSM Commercial Pty Ltd as Trustee for the CCMSM Commercial Trust v Registrar of Trade Marks [2025] FCA 1615 is a significant ruling in this regard, focusing on the application of deceptive similarity under section 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Although the Court acknowledged the heightened caution of consumers purchasing high-value items like recreational vehicles, it ultimately found that two proposed marks containing the letters “CRV” were deceptively similar to the registered “CR-V” mark. The decision highlights the importance of industry-specific naming conventions and the limited weight given to punctuation and stylization when the oral and aural impacts of the marks are identical.
Background of the Case
CCMSM Commercial Pty Ltd, trading as Crusader Caravans, sought to register two trade marks in Class 12 for caravans and other recreational vehicles: “CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY” and “CRV FAMILIA”. Crusader Caravans, the second-largest Australian-owned manufacturer of caravans, had adopted the “CRV” range name in 2019 as an abbreviation for “Crusader Recreational Vehicle”. These marks were rejected by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks on the basis that they fell under the issue of “deceptive similarity” to the registered “CR-V” mark, which is owned by Honda and registered for a broad range of vehicles.
Crusader Caravans appealed the decision to the Federal Court, arguing that the marks were not deceptively similar. They contended that the notional buyer of an expensive recreational vehicle would be discerning and research the market extensively. Further, they argued that the term “RV” is descriptive and widely understood in the industry to mean “recreational vehicle,” which would lead consumers to focus on the distinguishing elements of the marks, such as the hyphen in “CR-V” and the additional words like “GLADIATOR FAMILY”.
Issues Before the Court
Justice Bennett identified several key questions for determination-
- Whether the Respondent bore the burden of establishing deceptive similarity?
- What are the characteristics of the notional consumer in the market for recreational vehicles?
- Whether the common use of “RV” as an acronym in the industry renders it descriptive to the general public?
- Whether the Applicant Marks, when considered holistically, so nearly resemble the “CR-V” mark that they are likely to deceive or cause confusion?
The Question of Burden and Notional Consumer
The Court confirmed that the Registrar (represented by the Respondent) bears the burden of establishing that the Applicant Marks are deceptively similar to the prior registered mark. This follows the presumption of registrability embodied in section 33 of the Act.
The characteristics of the notional consumer were central to the dispute. While the Appellant argued that buyers of expensive caravans are exceptionally careful, the Court maintained that the notional buyer is a person of ordinary intelligence and memory. Although the high value of the goods is a relevant “surrounding circumstance,” potential buyers are not credited with “high perception or habitual caution”. The Court found that even a considered purchaser might be “caused to wonder” about a common source during the initial stages of research or upon hearing the marks spoken.
Reputation and Descriptive Elements
The Appellant heavily relied on the argument that “RV” is a descriptive acronym. While the evidence showed “RV” is commonly used within the industry, Justice Bennett was not satisfied that the broader public habitually ascribes the meaning “recreational vehicle” to these letters in a way that would diminish their significance as a brand.
The Court also addressed the role of reputation. Consistent with the High Court’s ruling in Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8, Justice Bennett held that any reputation in the “CR-V” mark was irrelevant to the analysis of deceptive similarity under section 44. The assessment is based on the particulars of the register and the full scope of the monopoly granted, rather than the actual market presence of the marks.
The Impact of Naming Conventions
The most decisive factor in the Court’s reasoning was the existence of well-understood branding conventions in the automotive industry. Vehicles are typically identified by a “house brand” (the manufacturer), followed by a “range name,” and finally a “model name”.
The Court found that the letters “CRV” functioned as a range name in the Applicant Marks. Because the registered “CR-V” mark consists of the exact same letters in the same order, a consumer familiar with automotive naming conventions would likely perceive “CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY” as a variant or sub-brand of the “CR-V” mark. The addition of words like “GLADIATOR FAMILY” or “FAMILIA” served merely as model identifiers and did not sufficiently distinguish the marks from the core branding element of the registered mark.
“Visual” and “Aural” Comparison
The Court gave significant weight to the fact that caravans are often sold and discussed orally. In speech, “CRV” and “CR-V” are pronounced identically as “C–R–V”. This oral similarity renders visual differences, such as the hyphen or the stylization of the logo mark, less effective at preventing confusion. Justice Bennett noted that fine details like different typefaces are likely to be overlooked by consumers relying on imperfect recollection.
Key Takeaways
This decision highlights several important practical lessons for businesses in the automotive and high-value equipment sectors.
Firstly, when products are frequently discussed orally or sold face-to-face, phonetic identity can override visual differences. A hyphen or a unique font may not be enough to distinguish a mark that sounds identical to a registered one.
Secondly, courts will consider how consumers in a specific industry are conditioned to read brands. If your mark follows a standard “Range + Model” format, the range name must be sufficiently distinct from existing marks to avoid being seen as a sub-brand.
Thirdly, to argue that an acronym is “descriptive” and therefore has low distinctiveness, you must prove that the general public, i.e. not just industry insiders, understands it that way.
Lastly, even if a prior mark is registered as a stylized logo (device), its monopoly covers the normal and fair use of the underlying letters, including their spoken form.
Conclusion
That said, the Federal Court’s ruling reinforces the protective nature of the trade mark register. By prioritizing the “real, tangible danger” of confusion over the technical differences of a hyphen or additional model names, the Court ensured that the core identity of the “CR-V” mark remained protected within the automotive market, thus answering the question of deceptive similarity. For brand owners, the lesson is clear, i.e. when adopting a new range name, one must look beyond visual stylization and consider how the mark fits into established industry patterns and oral commerce.
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
