Trade mark disputes often appear straightforward when two brand names look and sound alike. The position becomes more complicated when those marks are used for products that sit within the same industry but serve different commercial purposes.
That tension was at the centre of Hills Industries Limited v Bitek Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 94, where the Federal Court considered the competing marks DGTEC and DIGITEK. Although the Court found the marks deceptively similar in sound, appearance and meaning, that similarity did not prevent DIGITEK from being registered for TV installation accessories.
The decisive issue was the goods themselves. Hills’ registration covered digital and electronic products such as televisions, DVD players, decoders and cameras, while Bitek sought protection for TV installation accessories including external antennas, with set-top boxes expressly excluded. The Court found that these products were commercially related, and in some cases used together, but were not sufficiently similar for Hills to block registration.
The dispute therefore offers a useful illustration of how far trade mark rights extend when similar branding appears across neighbouring product categories. It also shows why the scope of a trade mark specification, actual use of the mark and the nature of the relevant goods can matter just as much as the similarity between the names.
Background of the dispute
The dispute concerned two businesses operating in related areas of the television and electronics industry.
The DGTEC business began selling digital set-top boxes under the DGTEC mark in about August 2001. Those products were sold through major Australian retailers including Dick Smith, Harvey Norman, Retravision, Myer and the Good Guys. The business later expanded the DGTEC range to other products including televisions, DVD players, digital video recorders, audio products and cameras.
In November 2007, Hills acquired the assets of the DGTEC business, including its goodwill and intellectual property rights. Those rights included Australian Trade Mark Registration No. 901020 for the series DGTEC, DGTEK and DGTECH, registered for “digital and electronic products including televisions, video players, DVD players, CD players, decoders and cameras”.
Bitek operated a different business. It imported and sold products used in the installation of free-to-air and satellite television receivers. It adopted the DIGITEK mark in 2003 and began selling DIGITEK branded cable in January 2004. Its range subsequently included antennas, cables, connectors, mounting brackets, splitters, remote controls, set-top boxes and other installation products. Around 90 per cent of Bitek’s DIGITEK customers were professional installers rather than ordinary retail consumers.
Bitek applied to register DIGITEK in July 2003. Following opposition proceedings, its specification was amended to cover:
“TV installation accessories including external TV antennas, none of the foregoing being set-top boxes.”
A delegate of the Registrar concluded that DIGITEK was deceptively similar to Hills’ earlier marks, but found that the respective goods were not similar. Registration was therefore allowed.
Hills appealed to the Federal Court. At the same time, Bitek sought removal of Hills’ trade mark registration for non-use, while Hills brought infringement proceedings against Bitek. The three proceedings were heard together.
Were DIGITEK and DGTEC deceptively similar?
The Court had little difficulty concluding that the marks were deceptively similar.
Hills argued that DGTEC and DIGITEK were similar in sound, appearance and meaning. Bitek disputed the similarity in pronunciation, contending that DGTEC would ordinarily be pronounced “Dee Gee Tec”, while DIGITEK would be pronounced “dijitek”.
Justice Lander considered that distinction insufficient.
Even accepting that DGTEC would ordinarily be pronounced “Dee Gee Tec”, the Court considered the pronunciation sufficiently close to DIGITEK to create a risk of confusion. The Court also found that the marks were visually similar. The absence of the letter “I” between the D and G in DGTEC was not particularly striking at first sight, while the difference between “TEC” and “TEK” carried little weight.
The meaning conveyed by the marks also pointed in the same direction. In the context of electronic products, “DG” or “DIG” suggested “digital”, while “TEC” and “TEK” suggested “technology”. Justice Lander considered that both marks conveyed essentially the same idea of digital technology.
The Court therefore agreed with the Registrar’s delegate that DGTEC and DIGITEK were deceptively similar.
That conclusion might ordinarily appear to favour the owner of the earlier registration. The dispute, however, turned on the next part of the analysis.
Were the goods sufficiently similar?
Section 44 of the Trade Marks Act required more than deceptive similarity between the marks. Hills also needed to establish that Bitek was seeking registration for goods that were the same as, or of the same description as, the goods covered by Hills’ earlier registration.
In considering whether goods are of the same description, the Court examined their nature, their uses and the trade channels through which they are bought and sold.
Hills argued that televisions and TV installation accessories were closely related. An antenna, for example, assists a television in receiving a signal, and the two products ultimately contribute to the same television viewing experience.
The Court accepted that the products could be functionally interdependent. That did not make them goods of the same description.
TV installation accessories such as antennas, cables, brackets and connectors performed a supporting function. Hills’ electronic products processed signals and delivered visual or audio output. The products were not substitutes for one another and served different immediate purposes.
The way they were marketed also differed. Products such as televisions and DVD players were predominantly marketed directly to retail consumers and were commonly displayed so purchasers could assess their appearance and functionality. TV installation accessories were mainly directed to professional installers and wholesalers. Even when installation accessories appeared in retail stores, they were usually presented differently from consumer electronics.
The Court considered the goods complementary, but not similar.
As Justice Lander concluded, the fact that a television and an antenna may depend on one another for functionality does not transform an antenna into an article of the same description as a television.
This distinction proved decisive.
Similar marks do not necessarily mean similar goods
The Court’s analysis highlights the danger of treating commercial proximity as equivalent to legal similarity.
Two products may be used together. They may be found within the same broad industry. They may even appear in some of the same stores. None of those matters is necessarily decisive.
The Court looked at the overall commercial character of the goods. Bitek’s installation accessories and Hills’ consumer electronics had different functions, were generally purchased for different reasons and moved through materially different trade channels.
Accordingly, Hills failed to establish the necessary similarity of goods under section 44.
Its opposition to registration therefore failed, and Bitek was entitled to registration of DIGITEK for the amended specification excluding set-top boxes. A corrigendum subsequently confirmed that Hills’ appeal was to be dismissed, rather than allowed, and Bitek’s application was to proceed to registration.
Did DGTEC have the necessary reputation?
Hills also relied on section 60 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that DGTEC had acquired a reputation in Australia before Bitek’s priority date and that use of DIGITEK would therefore be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
There was substantial evidence of commercial activity behind DGTEC.
Before July 2003, approximately 33,377 DGTEC set-top boxes had been sold, generating around $20.3 million in revenue. Advertising expenditure was said to be approximately $395,500, and the products had been available through hundreds of retailers.
The Court nevertheless distinguished between evidence that a product had sold successfully and evidence that the trade mark itself had acquired the reputation required by section 60.
Justice Lander was not satisfied that the sales and advertising figures, standing alone, demonstrated the necessary reputation in the DGTEC mark. The evidence showed considerable sales of set-top boxes, but did not sufficiently establish the market’s recognition of the mark itself.
The section 60 opposition therefore failed.
The Court also considered that, even if DGTEC had acquired the claimed reputation, that reputation at the priority date related to set-top boxes. Bitek’s registration specifically excluded set-top boxes, making confusion about the origin of its TV installation accessories less likely.
Bitek’s challenge to the DGTEC registration
The dispute also turned back on Hills when Bitek sought removal of the DGTEC series registration for non-use.
Bitek argued that Hills had not used the marks across the full breadth of the registered specification.
The Court accepted that because DGTEC, DGTEK and DGTECH were registered as a series, evidence of use of DGTEC could support the series as a whole. It did not accept, however, that Hills should automatically retain the full breadth of a broad specification merely because the mark had been used for some products.
The evidence established use in relation to a particular group of products.
The Court therefore considered it appropriate to amend the registration so that it covered digital and electronic products including set-top boxes, remote controls, digital video recorders with hard drive, televisions, CD and MP3 players, DVD players, micro sound systems, iPod docking speakers and web-based cameras.
The non-use proceeding is an important part of the case because it illustrates that enforcement can expose weaknesses in the enforcing party’s own registration. A broadly worded specification may become vulnerable if the owner cannot establish the relevant use when challenged.
What about trade mark infringement?
Hills had greater success when the Court considered Bitek’s actual use of DIGITEK.
Because DGTEC and DIGITEK had already been found deceptively similar, the question was whether the particular products Bitek sold under DIGITEK fell within Hills’ registration or were sufficiently similar to the registered goods.
Most did not.
The Court was not satisfied that products such as antennas, cables, switches and other TV installation accessories fell within the relevant scope. Again, the difference between installation accessories and consumer electronic products was important.
There were, however, two exceptions: set-top boxes and remote controls.
Bitek accepted that its digital set-top boxes were decoders and therefore came within Hills’ registered goods. It also conceded that remote controls fell within the relevant specification.
The Court therefore found infringement in relation to those products.
For the remainder of Bitek’s range, the Court found no infringement. Bitek was also able to rely on the statutory defence associated with its entitlement to obtain registration of DIGITEK for the goods covered by its application.
Hills was ultimately entitled to relief only in relation to Bitek’s use of DIGITEK for set-top boxes and remote controls.
The Trade Practices Act claims
Hills also alleged that Bitek’s conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the legislation which preceded the present Australian Consumer Law.
Those claims focused particularly on Bitek’s sale of DIGITEK set-top boxes and the suggestion that consumers might believe those products were DGTEC products or were sponsored, approved or associated with Hills.
The Court did not finally determine those claims in this judgment.
Justice Lander considered that the parties’ submissions on the alleged misrepresentations had been too brief and that it was unclear whether Hills sought any separate or additional relief beyond its successful trade mark infringement claim. The parties were therefore given an opportunity to make further submissions.
Commercial Significance
The decision provides several useful lessons for trade mark owners and businesses adopting brands in markets where products are commercially related.
Firstly, similarity between trade marks does not end the inquiry. DGTEC and DIGITEK were found to be deceptively similar, yet both could coexist for materially different goods. The scope of the registered specification and the commercial character of the competing goods remained critical.
Secondly, goods are not necessarily “similar goods” merely because they are complementary. A television and an antenna may be designed to work together, but they perform different functions and are not substitutes. Courts may look closely at the nature of the products, their purpose, their purchasers and the channels through which they reach the market.
Thirdly, evidence of strong sales does not automatically establish the particular reputation required for every trade mark claim. Businesses seeking to rely on reputation should be able to demonstrate not only that their products have sold successfully, but that consumers recognize the mark itself as indicating a particular commercial source.
Fourthly, trade mark owners should pay close attention to the scope of their registrations and their actual use. A broad specification can provide valuable protection, but it may also attract a non-use challenge. Where use cannot be established across the claimed scope, the registration may be narrowed.
Finally, the case shows why infringement must be considered product by product. Bitek was largely free to use DIGITEK for its TV installation accessories, despite the deceptive similarity between the marks. Once it used the same mark for set-top boxes and remote controls falling within Hills’ protected territory, the outcome changed.
The broader lesson from Hills Industries v Bitek is that trade mark protection is defined not simply by how close two names look or sound, but by the commercial territory attached to them. A similar mark operating in a sufficiently different market may be capable of registration and lawful use. Move that same mark onto goods falling within an earlier owner’s protected area, however, and the legal position can change considerably.
For businesses selecting, registering or enforcing trade marks, the case is a reminder that the wording of the specification matters just as much as the mark appearing at the top of the registration.
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
