FWRD v FFWD: The Challenge of Abbreviations as Trade Marks

ByMarkport

In FWRD, LLC v Corezero Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 11, the Australian Trade Marks Office (TMO) considered an opposition involving two similar-looking trade marks: FWRD and FFWD. This case offers valuable lessons for businesses using abbreviations or acronyms as trade marks, and it also sheds light on an often misunderstood aspect of trade mark law—the relationship between goods and services, even when they fall within the same class.

This is a trade mark case I managed during my time at my previous firm, and it highlights key considerations when dealing with brand names that rely on abbreviated formats.

The dispute arose when Corezero Pty Ltd applied to register FFWD for data processing software and software as a service (SaaS). FWRD, LLC, a well-known fashion retailer, opposed the application, claiming that FFWD was too similar to its own brand, FWRD, and could confuse consumers. However, the opposition was unsuccessful, and FFWD was allowed to proceed to registration.

How the TMO Assesses Similarity Between Abbreviations

The central issue in this case was whether FFWD and FWRD were “substantially identical” or “deceptively similar” under the Trade Marks Act 1995. While the two marks appear alike—both being four-letter abbreviations starting with “F” and ending with “D”—the TMO ruled that the differences were enough to avoid confusion.

The TMO looks at several factors when assessing similarity:

1. Visual Differences: Despite sharing some letters, the arrangement matters. The double “F” in FFWD distinguishes it from FWRD. When placed side by side, the differences are clear, and businesses should not assume that similar letter combinations will automatically cause confusion.

2. Pronunciation: The way an abbreviation is pronounced also plays a role. While FWRD might be read as “forward,” FFWD could be interpreted as “fast forward” or even pronounced letter by letter. This difference reduces the likelihood of confusion.

3. Meaning and Context: The TMO considered that the marks might have similar meanings related to movement or progress. However, the meaning is not enough on its own—how the trade mark is used in the market matters more. FWRD is known in the fashion retail space, while FFWD is used in the tech industry.

Unrelated Goods and Services in the Same Class

Another key takeaway from this case is the TMO’s approach to assessing the relationship between goods and services, even when they fall within the same trade mark class.

In this case, both FFWD and FWRD had trade marks registered in Classes 9 and 42, which broadly cover technology-related goods and services, including software. However, the TMO found that not all goods and services within the same class are considered related.

  • For example:
    • FFWD was registered for data processing software and software as a service (SaaS), focusing on business tech solutions.
    • FWRD, while also covering software in its registrations, used its trade mark primarily for retail services related to fashion, with some software tied to its e-commerce platform.

The TMO determined that:

  • FFWD’s software services were closely related to FWRD’s software services that directly provided SaaS or online software tools.
  • However, FWRD’s retail services, even though listed under the same class, were not closely related to FFWD’s data processing software. Consumers would not reasonably expect a fashion retailer to develop complex data analytics software, nor would they assume a tech company is connected to a fashion brand just because both use software in some way.

This decision highlights that class numbers alone don’t determine relatedness. What matters is the nature, purpose, and commercial context of the goods and services.

Key Lessons for Businesses Using Abbreviations and Navigating Trade Mark Classes

1. Be Careful with Similar Acronyms: Just because an abbreviation looks simple doesn’t mean it’s free from legal risks. Always consider how it compares visually and phonetically with existing trade marks, especially in your industry.

2. Context Matters More Than Class Numbers: Just because goods or services fall within the same trade mark class doesn’t mean they are automatically considered related. The TMO looks at the real-world connection between the products and services.

3. Distinctiveness Is Key: The more distinctive your abbreviation is, the stronger your trade mark will be. Simple letter combinations are common, so adding unique design elements or using less obvious acronyms can help.

4. Evidence Is Critical in Disputes: If you oppose a trade mark because it’s similar to yours, you’ll need strong evidence showing not just the similarity but also a real risk of consumer confusion.

5. Consider How Consumers Think: The TMO’s decisions are grounded in consumer perception. Ask yourself: Would the average customer genuinely confuse these products or services, or are they too different?

Conclusion

The decision in FWRD, LLC v Corezero Pty Ltd highlights that abbreviations and acronyms can be tricky in trade mark law. While they might seem simple, the TMO applies a detailed assessment, focusing on visual, phonetic, and contextual differences. Additionally, just because goods or services are listed under the same class doesn’t mean they’re related for legal purposes.

If your business uses—or plans to use—an acronym or abbreviation as a trade mark, or if you’re unsure about how your goods or services fit within trade mark classes, it’s wise to seek professional advice. At Markport™, we help businesses navigate the complexities of trade mark registration, ensuring your brand is distinctive and protected.

For guidance on your trade mark, contact us.