Story: Paul Rojas, Partner, RA Law Group
The Pops Group Pty Ltd as trustee for The Pool Shops Trust v Pro Pool Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 912
Can reversing the order of two ordinary words be enough to infringe a registered trade mark? In The Pops Group Pty Ltd as trustee for The Pool Shops Trust v Pro Pool Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 912, the Federal Court held that it can. On 16 July 2026, Justice Derrington ruled in favour of our client, Pool Pro.
His Honour found that Pro Pool Services Pty Ltd (Pro Pool) had infringed our client’s registered “POOL PRO” trade marks and permanently restrained it from trading under the name “Pro Pool”.
THE DISPUTE
Our client was the applicant. It operates the well-known Pool Pro business, which since 1993 has grown into one of Australia’s leading suppliers of pool chemicals and equipment, servicing around 900 retailers across Australia, the Solomon Islands and Fiji. The Pool Pro brand is protected by three registered trade marks.
Those marks comprise two “POOL PRO” word marks (1999) and a composite “POOL PRO” logo (2011).
The respondent, Pro Pool, was by contrast a small Melbourne pool-maintenance business, registered in 2013.
Critically, our client did not attack Pro Pool’s full business name, “Pro Pool Services”. Instead, it took aim at the respondent’s habit of shortening that name to “Pro Pool”, a sign our client said was deceptively similar to, and an infringement of, its registered trade marks.
The alleged infringements spanned Pro Pool’s website domain and content, its Facebook posts, and the “Pro Pool Shop” signage at its business premises.
THE LEGAL ISSUES
Trade mark infringement in Australia is governed by section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
His Honour confirmed the three elements of infringement under section 120(1): use of the sign as a trade mark; substantial identity or deceptive similarity with the registered mark; and use for the goods or services for which the mark is registered.
TRADE MARK USAGE
The threshold question was whether Pro Pool’s signs were being used as trade marks at all, an issue governed by section 17 of the Act.
As his Honour explained, a sign functions as a trade mark where “the sign acts as a ‘badge of origin’ to indicate a connection between goods or services and the user of the mark”.
In the present case, it was deemed “palpably clear that [the Respondent] … used ‘Pro Pool Services’ and the Logo as trade marks to distinguish its goods and services from those of others”.
However, while the respondent “primarily referred to itself as ‘Pro Pool Services’ … the references to ‘Pro Pool’ on the About Us page also constitute trade marks in and of themselves”.
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL OR DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR
The first question—whether the signs were substantially identical—sets a high bar, as shown by the case where ODYSSEUS and ODYSSEY were found not to be substantially identical. The same conclusion followed here.
The real battleground was deceptive similarity, and here the factors told firmly against Pro Pool.
Most obviously, the two marks used the very same words in reverse order, a feature the Court called “of considerable significance”, with our client’s word mark being POOL PRO and the respondent’s, PRO POOL.
“Even a minor variation on a registered mark, such as reversing the order of two words, can leave a business exposed.”
The Court also noted that “[t]he words PRO and POOL are monosyllabic and begin with the same letter”, which makes their order less memorable to the ordinary consumer and the two marks more alike.
By contrast, a reversal like “SOLAR FIRST” and “FIRST SOLAR” is easier to notice, as those words are not both monosyllabic and start with different letters.
REGISTRATION
The final element was not in dispute: “the infringing marks were used by … [the Respondent] in relation to goods or services in respect of which [our Client’s] [T]rade … [M]arks were registered”.
ANY DEFENCES?
The Court rejected each of the respondent’s defences, including its plea of good faith.
Although Pro Pool had engaged its accountant “to confirm the availability of the name ‘Pro Pool Services’”, such was deemed to “amount … to little more than mere ignorance”.
The law expects traders to be diligent, to seek legal advice or search the trade marks register before adopting a new name.
That diligence was missing here: “[t]he evidence demonstrates that a search of the register of trade marks for ‘Pro Pool’ returns [our Client’s] … Trade Marks”.
EFFECT OF THE JUDGEMENT
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Pro Pool from using “Pro Pool”, or any sign “substantially identical with or deceptively similar to” our client’s trade marks.
Our client was also awarded “damages … in the amount of $60,000.00 plus interest”.
The Court declined to award additional damages, finding the infringement was not “flagrant” and that Pro Pool had gained no benefit from it.
WHY DOES THIS CASE MATTER?
This case is a pointed reminder that trade mark infringement carries real and costly consequences—financial and reputational. Even a minor variation on a registered mark, such as reversing the order of two words, can leave a business exposed.
There is also a strategic lesson here. Our client deliberately confined its claim to the “use of the abbreviation ‘Pro Pool’ [as] constitut[ing] … the relevant infringing conduct”, withdrawing any allegation against the full name “Pro Pool Services”.
The message is clear: a formal name unlikely to confuse consumers will not, by itself, shield a trader. If it also uses an abbreviation or informal name as a “badge of origin” that is deceptively similar to another’s registered mark in the same field, it remains exposed.
Whether you are launching a new business, looking to register a trade mark, or concerned that someone has infringed yours, the experienced team at RA Law Group can help.
Contact us today to protect your brand.
This article, published by RA Law Group, is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the article, the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the article published. The article should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult RA Law Group on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.