The Federal Court has ruled that Maltesers are so well-known they cannot be mistaken for just any round chocolate ball.
Confectionery company Mars had complained that the name and packaging of Malt Balls, a snack imported and distributed by Sweet Rewards, a firm from Melbourne, were too similar to its Maltesers.
Both confectionery items had red packaging, Malt Balls in a jar, Maltesers in a pouch.
And both sweets featured an image of floating chocolate balls, some halved to reveal a filling.
Mars alleged Sweet Rewards had infringed its trademarks and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act.
Justice Nye Perram recently dismissed the application and awarded costs in favour of Sweet Rewards, ruling no reasonable chocaholic would be confused.
The key to his finding was that the Malt Balls package did not include the word “Maltesers”.
Because the Maltesers name was so well-known in Australia Justice Perram said it was “highly unlikely that any ordinary consumer of chocolate confectionery could mistake something which is not called Maltesers for a Malteser”.
In that sense he concluded, “Mars is a victim of its own success”.
The Malt Balls packaging differed in other ways from that of Maltesers, the court found, including the use of a distinct logo and a different shade of red.
Also, he said the snacks’ “aural similarity” was negligible.