If you hold a family of trade marks all starting with the same word, does that give you effective rights over that word? A decision handed down by IP Australia in June 2026 suggests the answer is no and provides a careful explanation of why.
In Lenovo PC International Limited v Boston Limited [2026 ATMO 104], Lenovo opposed the registration of "Thinkmate", a trade mark used by US-based computer hardware company Source Code LLC and its Australian affiliate Boston Limited. Lenovo pointed to an arsenal of registered Australian trade marks: ThinkPad, ThinkCentre, ThinkStation, ThinkServer, ThinkBook, ThinkAgile, ThinkSmart, ThinkReality, and around half a dozen others. The argument, in essence, was that Lenovo had so thoroughly colonised the THINK-prefix in the computer market that any new THINK-prefixed mark would cause confusion.
The delegate wasn't persuaded. THINKMATE may proceed to registration.
The "family of marks" argument
Lenovo's central submission was that its consistent practice of extending the THINK brand through a family of trade marks meant consumers would associate any THINK-prefixed mark with Lenovo. This is sometimes called a "family of marks" argument, the idea that ownership of multiple marks sharing a common feature creates a kind of umbrella protection over that feature.
Australian trade mark law doesn't work that way. The test for deceptive similarity requires a comparison between the applicant's trade mark and each of the opponent's trade marks individually. You cannot average out a group of trade marks and assert that their common element is where the confusion lies. As the delegate noted, this approach would effectively incorporate reputation into the deceptive similarity test — treating THINK as strongly associated with Lenovo by virtue of its use across multiple marks, which is precisely what the High Court rejected in Self Care IP Holdings v Allergan Australia.
Looking at THINKMATE against each of Lenovo's marks individually, the delegate found no deceptive similarity. The word "mate" is not immaterial or easily forgotten, it meaningfully distinguishes the mark from ThinkPad, ThinkCentre, ThinkStation, and the rest. The delegate also observed that "think" carries a somewhat descriptive flavour in the context of computers (thinking is, in a sense, what computers do for users), which further reduced the word's distinctiveness as a standalone element.
The reputation evidence fell apart
Lenovo's s 60 ground, that its THINK marks had acquired such a reputation in Australia that use of THINKMATE would cause confusion, failed for a different but equally important reason: the evidence.
Reputation under s 60 must attach to an individual trade mark, not a collective group. But Lenovo presented its sales revenue, unit sales, and advertising expenditure as figures for "Think-branded products" in aggregate. There was no way to determine from those figures what reputation any single mark had acquired. ThinkPad featured far more heavily than other marks, but even then the evidence didn't permit a meaningful analysis of its individual reputation.
Compounding this, the advertising expenditure figures were attributed to the Asia Pacific region, over 50 countries, including China, Japan, and Indonesia, rather than Australia specifically. A table purporting to show Australian advertising spend that actually covers the entire Asia Pacific region is of very limited value in establishing a reputation among Australian consumers.
The ACL misleading conduct ground was run on the same evidence as s 60, and fell for the same reasons.
What the applicant's evidence showed
Boston Limited's evidence told a different story. THINKMATE had been used for approximately 25 years and had been selling computer hardware to Australian customers for around 15 years. In all that time, no instances of confusion with Lenovo's products had ever been reported. The first Lenovo made its objection known was an email from its lawyers in April 2024, after the trade mark application had already been filed.
While actual use and actual confusion are not formally relevant to the deceptive similarity test, this background context gives a sense of how remote the real-world confusion risk was.
Costs
With every ground of opposition failing, costs were awarded against Lenovo. In a matter involving three opponent entities and senior counsel, that is a meaningful addition to an already complete loss.
What this case tells us
For brand owners seeking to protect a portfolio of marks with a shared element, this decision is a reminder that Australian law does not recognise a freestanding right in a common prefix. Each trade mark must stand on its own merits, and reputation evidence must be tied to individual marks, not presented in aggregate across a brand family. Broad and unitemised sales or advertising figures will not do the job.
For those facing opposition from large brand owners asserting portfolio rights, this decision is a useful authority for the proposition that owning many marks starting with the same word does not amount to ownership of that word.
[2026 ATMO 104 — Lenovo PC International Limited v Boston Limited]