The Pops Group Pty Ltd as trustee for the Pool Shops Trust v Pro Pool Services Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2026] FCA 912

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Intellectual Property
2. › Trade Marks
3. › Infringement under s 120(1) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Trade Marks
3. › Use as a trade mark — domain names and website content
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Trade Marks
3. › Deceptive similarity — transposed word marks
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Trade Marks
3. › Authorised user — standing under s 26(1)(b) — common directorship

A domain name used as a digital shopfront to advertise and sell goods or services constitutes use of the words within that domain as a trade mark, and abbreviated references to a business name on a website or in social media hashtags can independently function as badges of origin even where the full business name is the dominant brand (applying Flexopack, Solahart, Self Care and Anheuser-Busch).
The user principle for assessing damages under s 126 of the Trade Marks Act operates on the basis of a hypothetical negotiation and applies irrespective of whether the parties would in fact have entered a licence arrangement; the notional licence fee must reflect the actual infringing use and not hypothetical additional commercial activity such as product sales that did not occur (following Winnebago and Universal, declining to follow Aristocrat).
Relief for trade mark infringement is confined to the case as pleaded in the concise statement; where the pleading alleges infringement only by an abbreviated mark and not the respondent's full business name, the court will not grant relief in respect of the full name, even if sought in the originating application.