Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Limited

Trade Marks – "NIKE" - Appellants and respondents registered identical trade marks in respect of different products - Appellants' use of mark likely to deceive or cause confusion - Appellants intended to take advantage of respondents' goodwill - Application to expunge appellants' trade marks.

Trade Marks – Whether s 28 of Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) has continuing or secondary operation - Interests to which protection under s 28 is directed - Whether s 28 prevents "dilution" of trade mark - Whether s 28 accommodates prior or honest concurrent use - Whether appellants' trade marks had a reasonable probability of causing confusion - Issue to be considered prospectively at date of application for registration - Power to expunge mark from Register - Exercise of discretion on appeal - Limitation of goods for which trade mark registered.

Trade Practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct - Significance of "erroneous assumption" - Nexus between conduct and misconceptions or deceptions - Effect upon ordinary or reasonable members of the class of prospective purchasers to whom conduct directed.

Words and Phrases – "likely to deceive or cause confusion" - "wrongly made in the Register" - "wrongly remaining in the Register" - "blameworthy activities" - "dilution" - "probability of confusion" - "misleading or deceptive conduct" - "erroneous assumption".

Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) – ss 22, 28, 34, 53(2), 58, 61.

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – ss 93, 96, 207, 233(1), 234, 250.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – ss 52, 80.