When ROCK Meets XBOOM: LG Electronics Wins Trade Mark Hearing at IP Australia

LG Electronics wanted to add a new speaker to its XBOOM range. It filed an Australian trade mark application for xboomRock — a stylised composite mark covering audio speakers, wireless headsets, headphones, earbuds, and a full suite of consumer electronics in Class 9. What it got instead was an examiner's objection, a multi-round written debate, and ultimately an oral hearing before a Delegate of the Registrar.

The core question: was xboomRock too close to the single word ROCK, already registered by two other parties?

The answer, delivered on 7 July 2026, was no. The application was ordered to proceed to acceptance.

The Cited Marks and the Objection

During examination, IP Australia raised objections under section 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) — the provision that requires rejection of an application where the applied-for mark is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, an earlier registered mark covering similar goods.

Two cited marks stood in LG's way:

• ROCK (No. 910020) — owned by Bob Xu, registered since 2002 for Class 9 computer multimedia speakers.

• A stylised ROCK fancy mark (No. 1809711) — owned by Shenzhen Renqing Technology Co Ltd, with a priority date of 2016, covering smart cards, identity cards, telephone set sheaths and camcorders in Class 9.

The examiner maintained the objection through three rounds of written submissions. LG then requested an oral hearing, at which Sonia Stewart of Counsel (instructed by Diana Bogunovic of FB Rice) appeared for LG.

LG's Case: XBOOM Does the Heavy Lifting

LG's argument was straightforward and well-constructed. The mark is not ROCK — it is xboomRock, and XBOOM is the element that matters.

XBOOM is an invented word with no ordinary dictionary meaning. It appears first in the mark. It is visually and aurally prominent. It has been LG's consistent brand identifier across a family of audio products — including registrations for X-Boom, XBOOM, and a series of stylised XBOOM formative marks in Australia covering speakers, mobile phones, televisions, and a wide range of consumer electronics.

By contrast, LG argued, ROCK is a common English word that in the context of audio products naturally evokes rock music or sonic intensity. It functions as a subordinate product descriptor — the kind of word that tells a consumer what the product is about, not who made it. LG pointed to numerous third-party trade mark registrations on the Australian register containing the word ROCK for Class 9 goods in the sound, audio, and entertainment space — including ROCK FORCE, OpenRock, rock space, and TWO-ROCK — as evidence that ROCK is not a singular indicator of trade origin in this field.

LG also drew an analogy with its own existing XBOOM family. The examiner had not objected to other XBOOM formative marks despite prior registrations of SOLO and POWER for similar goods. The principle, LG argued, was the same: XBOOM functions as the branding element; the second word describes or qualifies.

The Delegate's Findings

Delegate Tracey Berger accepted LG's core submission.

The test for deceptive similarity under s 10 of the Act is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks. Rather, the question is whether an ordinary consumer, with an imperfect recollection of the earlier mark, encountering the applied-for mark would be likely to wonder whether the goods came from the same or an associated trade source.

Assessed on that basis, the Delegate found that the overall impression conveyed by xboomRock was materially different from that of the cited ROCK marks. XBOOM, appearing first, is the dominant element — it has no descriptive meaning, and it is the component that consumers would most readily notice, recall, and associate with a brand.

The word ROCK, at the end of the mark, plays a secondary role. In the context of audio goods, ROCK has an obvious allusive quality — it evokes a genre of music, a sonic character, or a product attitude — and is therefore less capable of functioning as a primary badge of origin. The Delegate noted the register evidence with appropriate caution (the presence of marks on the register does not prove use in the market) but gave it real, if limited, weight as contextual support for the descriptive character of ROCK in this field.

The Delegate also accepted the relevance of LG's XBOOM brand family — not as determinative, but as consistent context showing that consumers are likely to perceive the mark as part of the XBOOM product range, rather than as a mark connected with the owners of ROCK.

The second requirement under s 44 — deceptive similarity — was not established. The application was ordered to proceed to acceptance.

Practical Takeaways for Brand Owners

• The dominant element carries the most weight. In composite marks, the first and most distinctive element shapes the consumer's overall impression. Place your distinctive branding element first and make it the centrepiece of the mark.

• Descriptive or allusive elements are harder to monopolise. Words that convey a quality, a genre, or a characteristic of the goods — like ROCK for audio products — attract a narrower scope of protection. Owning ROCK for speakers does not mean you can block every subsequent mark that uses the word alongside a prominent distinctive element.

• Register evidence matters, even without market evidence. LG could not prove consumers had actually been exposed to multiple ROCK-formative marks in the marketplace. But the sheer number of such marks on the register supported the inference that ROCK is a common linguistic building block in the field, not a singular indicator of one trader.

• Brand families provide useful context. A demonstrated pattern of using a consistent distinctive element across a range of products — as LG did with XBOOM — is relevant to how consumers will perceive a new mark in that family. Build your brand family deliberately and document it.

• Oral hearings can be worth it. The examiner maintained the objection through three rounds of written submissions. It took an oral hearing — with counsel — to achieve a different result. When a legitimate application faces a stubborn objection, requesting a hearing is sometimes the most effective option.

The Bigger Picture

This decision is a useful reminder that s 44 objections are not automatic rejections. The existence of an earlier registered mark containing a shared word does not, by itself, mean that a later composite mark incorporating that word must be refused. The assessment is always contextual, always holistic, and always focused on the likely perception of ordinary consumers rather than an abstract word-by-word dissection.

For applicants facing s 44 objections — particularly where the shared element has a descriptive or allusive quality and the applied-for mark has a distinctive dominant element — there is a real argument to be made. This case shows what a well-prepared oral hearing, with the right evidence and submissions, can achieve.

Citation: LG Electronics Inc [2026] ATMO 125 (7 July 2026). Applicant represented by Sonia Stewart of Counsel, instructed by Diana Bogunovic of FB Rice.

Facing a trade mark examination objection? Contact Stellar Law for expert advice on your options.