Cards Against Humanity Plays the Non-Use Card — And Loses

When “Cards Against Humanity” tried to scrub “Cards Against Humidity” from the Trade Marks Register, the battleground was section 92(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act — non-use and intention to use.

The applicants argued that the local owners never really intended to use the Cards Against Humidity parody-style mark and hadn’t done so.

However, the Delegate reminded us of a long-standing principle: filing itself is prima facie evidence of intent to use. Even a single act of use, if genuine and convincing, can be enough to keep a mark alive.

The opponent produced evidence — workshops, printed materials, testimony from participants — sufficient to show the Cards Against Humidity mark wasn’t a pure squatting play.

Result: Cards Against Humanity’s removal action failed.

Why it matters

• Non-use isn’t automatic — opponents must prove both lack of intent and lack of use.

• Minimal use can suffice — one bona fide act may keep a mark registered.

• Evidence discipline — declarations, workshop flyers, even attendee testimony, all counted.

💡 IP Mojo Take

The decision (Cards Against Humanity v Cards Against Humidity [2025] ATMO 201) shows how low the bar can be to defend against non-use removal.

For applicants, it’s a reminder not to assume a quirky parody mark is vulnerable just because the evidence of use looks thin.

Legacy Protects Its Legacy: Iconic Charity Defeats Opportunistic Slogan

“Leave a Legacy, Not a Lost Life.” It sounds noble — but when filed as a trade mark for charitable fundraising and counselling, it ran into an immovable obstacle: LEGACY, the century-old Australian veterans’ charity.

Legacy opposed under section 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), pointing to its towering reputation: over a hundred years of service to veterans’ families, national campaigns like Legacy Week, coins, stamps, and even a tunnel named in its honour.

The Delegate agreed. The evidence showed LEGACY is a household name and an Australian icon. The slogan would cause real confusion, especially as both parties operated in the same charitable and counselling space.

Why it matters

• Reputation wins — even without deceptive similarity, s 60 protects iconic marks.

• Charitable space is no free-for-all — opportunistic filings will be blocked.

• Public interest dimension — where a mark is part of national heritage, confusion is not tolerated.

💡 IP Mojo Take

Legacy’s centenary case reinforces that reputation is the most powerful weapon in opposition. If your brand is iconic, s 60 is your shield.

Sportsbet’s “More Places”: Distinct Enough to Register

Can a trade mark like MORE PLACES really distinguish betting apps and wagering services? The Registrar thought so in Sportsbet Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 195.

The case was a test of s 41 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), which stops marks that are too descriptive from being registered. Examiners had argued that MORE PLACES was purely descriptive — suggesting Sportsbet’s services were available from more venues, or that gamblers could win more “places” in a race. Either way, they said, other traders needed that phrase free for honest use.

But Sportsbet pushed back. The Delegate agreed that while the words had a meaning, they weren’t directly descriptive of the goods and services. Instead, the phrase was more of a “covert or skilful allusion” in the Cantarella sense — an allusive tagline, not a generic description.

👉 Outcome: application accepted for registration.

Why it matters

• Allusion vs description: This case shows how fine the line is between a mark that merely hints and one that directly describes.

• Taglines can stick: Even in a heavily regulated, crowded industry like wagering, a catchy phrase can clear the s 41 hurdle.

• The presumption of registrability is real: unless the Registrar is satisfied the mark can’t distinguish, applicants get the benefit of the doubt.

The takeaway? You don’t need a completely fanciful word to succeed. Sometimes, a clever phrase like MORE PLACES will do the trick.

Reckitt’s Red Powerball Fizzles: Shape Marks for Dishwashing Tablets Refused

If you’ve ever stacked a dishwasher, you’ll know the iconic Finish red “powerball” capsule. Reckitt tried to lock down that look with two shape/colour trade mark applications — but Henkel (maker of rival dishwashing products) opposed.

In Henkel AG & Co. KGaA v Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V. [2025] ATMO 198, the Delegate refused both marks under s 41 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Reckitt argued its tablet shapes and colours (blue, white and red, with a central “ball”) had become distinctive through use. But Henkel countered that capsule-style tablets are industry standard: divided compartments, bright colours, and glossy “gel” effects all signal product function or quality.

Evidence showed competing brands used similar designs, making these visual features common to the trade.

The Delegate agreed. While Reckitt’s advertising highlighted the “powerball” as a badge of origin, the overall shapes and colour combinations weren’t inherently adapted to distinguish, and the use evidence wasn’t enough to carry the day.

👉 Result: registration refused.

Why it matters

• Shape and colour marks are tough: Features that are functional or common in an industry rarely meet the distinctiveness threshold.

• Marketing ≠ distinctiveness: Advertising a red ball as your “thing” doesn’t prove consumers see it as a trade mark, especially if competitors use similar visual cues.

• Evidence must be targeted: Courts and registries want clear, dated, and widespread evidence showing the public perceives the design as a brand, not just decoration.

For brand owners, the message is clear: don’t rely on shape/colour marks to protect your product design.

Instead, combine registered trade marks, design rights, and trade dress enforcement for a stronger strategy.

Puma v Tiger Woods: The Cat Fight Over a Leaping Logo

When Tiger Woods launched his new Sun Day Red brand with TaylorMade, it came with a sleek “leaping tiger” device mark. Puma — owner of the iconic leaping cat logo used since 1968 — wasn’t impressed.

In Puma SE v Sunday Red LLC [2025] ATMO 197, Puma opposed two applications for Sun Day Red’s logos under s 44 (deceptive similarity) and s 60 (reputation) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Puma argued that its feline reputation was so strong that Tiger’s tiger would cause confusion. Evidence showed Puma’s long history in sportswear and golf sponsorships, and even social media chatter about the similarity between the marks.

But the Delegate wasn’t convinced. While Puma has huge global clout, the marks weren’t substantially identical, and the context — Tiger Woods’ golf-focused apparel — made confusion unlikely. On s 60, Puma’s reputation was undeniable, but not enough to block Sun Day Red given the clear differences in branding.

👉 Outcome: Sun Day Red’s trade marks proceed to registration.

Why it matters

• Celebrity branding v legacy sportswear: Fame cuts both ways. Tiger Woods’ global profile helped counter Puma’s reputation argument.

• Logos need more than a vibe: Even if two marks both feature “leaping animals,” registrability turns on overall impression, not loose thematic overlap.

• Strategic lesson: Oppositions based on reputation need strong evidence of likely deception or confusion, not just brand prominence.

This is a textbook case of two power brands colliding — and a reminder that in trade mark law, even a Puma can’t always outrun a Tiger.