Australia: Was a rivals use of the phrase Post without the office a breach of Australia Posts intellectual property? Which case won?

case a - The case for Sendle

case b - The case for Australia Post

• We believe there is no confusion caused by our trade mark. We have adapted the trade mark precisely to convey the message that our services are different to Australia Post and to distinguish ourselves from its traditional method of parcel and delivery services of physically visiting a post office.
• The fact that the Australian public is so intimately familiar with Australia Post, its trade marks and its prominent red branding, serves to reduce, not increase the likelihood that a consumer will confuse it with our trade mark.
• We consider it very unlikely that our trade mark will mislead the Australian public to think that it is Australia Post providing the service, rather than an independent third party.

• We oppose Sendle's application to register the trade mark "Post without the office", as we consider it to be deceptively similar to trade marks that we have owned for many years.
• The use of "Post without the office" is a manipulation of our brand, much the same as if the words "without the" were interposed between other well-known brand names, for example "Louis without the Vuitton" and "Hungry without the Jacks".
• We have a long-established reputation with the Australian public for delivering parcels. For Australians, the word "Post" is now synonymous with us.
• We have recently started offering services online and through alternative channels, including channels that don't require physical attendance at a post office. Sendle's trade mark will create confusion for the Australian public and cause them to believe that we are providing the services, not Sendle.