Same Name, Different Markets: Why FLAMEPRO Lost Its Opposition Against Coats

Same Name, Different Markets: Why FLAMEPRO Lost Its Opposition Against Coats

When two businesses share an almost identical name, you'd think trade mark conflict is inevitable. But trade mark law is more nuanced than that. Identical or near-identical marks can coexist perfectly lawfully if they operate in different markets for different goods. The FlamePro case is a sharp illustration of how a substantially identical mark can still fail to block a competitor — because the goods are just too different.

Background: Two Businesses in the Fire Safety Space

FlamePro Global Limited manufactures personal protective equipment for firefighters — helmets, protective garments, boots, and related gear in Class 9. It holds the marks FLAME PRO and a stylised FLAME PRO in Australia, also covering Class 35 services for retail of safety equipment.

J. & P. Coats, Limited is a long-established thread and textiles company. Coats filed an international registration designating Australia for the mark FLAMEPRO in Class 24 — covering flame-resistant fabrics and textiles used in the manufacture of protective clothing and garments.

FlamePro Global opposed, arguing that FLAMEPRO (Coats) was deceptively similar to FLAME PRO (FlamePro Global) and that the goods were similar or closely related — triggering the section 44 bar under the Trade Marks Act 1995.

The Marks: Substantially Identical

On the first question, FlamePro was right. FLAMEPRO and FLAME PRO differ only by a space. That is not a meaningful distinction for trade mark purposes — both marks are pronounced identically, look virtually the same, and carry the same meaning. The marks were found to be substantially identical.

But substantial similarity of marks is only half the section 44 equation. The goods must also be similar or closely related. This is where FlamePro's case came apart.

The Goods: Different Markets, Different Customers

Delegate Justin Williams undertook a careful comparison of the goods covered by each mark.

Coats' Class 24 goods are flame-resistant fabrics and textiles — raw materials sold by the metre or by weight to manufacturers who then construct protective clothing and garments. The customer for Coats' goods is a clothing manufacturer operating in a business-to-business context, purchasing technical fabrics in bulk for incorporation into their product lines.

FlamePro's Class 9 goods are finished protective garments — helmets, suits, boots — sold to fire services, emergency services organisations, and safety-conscious end users. The customer for FlamePro's goods is an organisation or individual who needs personal protective equipment, not a manufacturing business sourcing raw textile inputs.

The distinction is commercially meaningful:

• Different nature: raw textile material versus finished protective item

• Different purpose: manufacturing precursor versus personal protection in use

• Different trade channels: bulk B2B textile supply versus PPE retail and distribution

• Different customers: clothing manufacturers versus fire and emergency services

While both parties operate in the broad fire safety and flame-resistant ecosystem, they serve completely separate parts of the market at different points in the supply chain. The goods are not similar or closely related within the meaning of the Act.

The Decision

Delegate Williams dismissed the opposition. J. & P. Coats' FLAMEPRO mark will proceed to protection in Australia. Costs were awarded against FlamePro Global.

Practical Takeaways

• Identical marks can coexist if the goods are genuinely different. Section 44 requires both mark similarity AND goods/services similarity. Winning on marks but losing on goods means losing the opposition entirely.

• Where you sit in the supply chain matters. A raw material supplier and a finished goods manufacturer may operate in the same broad industry sector but serve entirely different markets. Trade mark law recognises these commercial distinctions.

• Assess your opposition prospects honestly before filing. FlamePro Global incurred a costs order for an opposition that failed at the goods comparison stage. A clear-eyed pre-filing analysis of whether the goods are genuinely similar would have informed that decision.

• Class 24 (fabrics) and Class 9 (protective clothing) can be quite different. The specific class breakdown in trade mark law reflects real commercial distinctions. Goods in adjacent or related classes are not automatically similar for section 44 purposes.

Citation: FlamePro Global Limited v J. & P. Coats, Limited [2026] ATMO 139 (21 July 2026)

Facing a trade mark issue? Contact Stellar Law for expert advice.