The Federal Court of Australia last week handed down judgment in Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd, which was a dispute between two rhyming telephone vendors of questionable mental state: Crazy John’s and Crazy Ron’s. Crazy John’s claimed infringement of two trademarks (one registered in 1995, the other in 1999), the former of which concerned a ‘maniacal looking man sitting on a globe of the world holding a mobile telephone’:

In 1996, mobile phone retailer Ron Bakir set up shop in Queensland two doors down from competitor Crazy John’s. He called his store Crazy Ron’s. The telecommunications companies happily traded alongside each other until Mr Bakir attempted to expand into New South Wales and Victoria.

The trial judge, Allsop J, found that Crazy Ron’s had infringed the 1995 registered trademark, knowing full well ‘the degree of similarity in rhyme and context of the two shops’. However, somewhat perplexingly, this was overturned on appeal by the Full Court of the Federal Court. They based this finding on the basis that, although the trading names were similar in assonance, the other (visual) components of the trademark were not replicated.

Nevertheless, the 1999 trademark — which pertained only to the words ‘Crazy John’s’ — was held to be sufficiently similar to the words ‘Crazy Ron’s’ that infringement could be said to occur. On the facts, however, the trademark was invalidly registered.

Crazy John’s was successful on the issue of misleading and deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices act 1974 (Cth), and granted injunctions on that basis.

Update (September 2004): Embarrassingly for Crazy Ron’s, they have since breached the injunctions and been penalised for contempt of court! They have also been ordered to pay Crazy John’s costs.

Update (March 2005): Now, born again: Mad Ron’s Mobile Phones.