emoji Company GB GmbH v Omni Proprietary Limited [2026] ATMO 145

Authors: Lan Pham, Progressive Legal

Not every “emoji” is the same emoji — at least not in trade mark law. 

The Australian Trade Marks Office has just handed down a decision that is a useful reminder of how nuanced deceptive similarity assessments really are. 

The Background

On 23 October 2024, Onni Pty Limited (‘Applicant’) applied to register MONEMOJI for electronic payment and software-as-a-service services in Classes 36 and 42. Emoji Company GmbH (‘Opponent’), the owner of a global portfolio of “emoji” trade marks and a well-known licensing business, opposed the application, arguing that the MONEMOJI mark was deceptively similar to its own emoji trade marks covering various goods and services. 

The opposition was based on four grounds under the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) (the ‘Regulations’) and the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘TMA’): substantial identity/deceptive similarity to the Opponent’s Madrid Protocol marks (the ‘EMOJI Registrations’) under Reg 4.15A of the Regulations, Opponent’s earlier use of a similar mark under s 58A of the TMA, reputation under s60 of the TMA, and the likelihood of deception or confusion because of some “connotation” in the trade mark under s43 of the TMA. The opposition failed on every ground, and the Applicant’s mark should shortly proceed to registration – with costs awarded against the Opponent.  

Key Takeaways

A few important points I found genuinely instructive: 

• Prefixes matter. The Delegate found that “mon-” at the front of the MONEMOJI mark materially changed the look, sound and overall impression of the mark, so that the embedded “emoji” element lost its separate identity within the coined word. 

• Common usage undercuts distinctiveness. The Delegate noted that “emoji” is now common everyday language rather than a highly distinctive coined term, meaning smaller differences were enough to distinguish the marks. This echoes long-standing principles about not granting an unfair monopoly over ordinary words. 

• Reputation needs hard evidence, not just licensing activity. Despite claiming continuous use since 2015 and hundreds of licensing partners, the Opponent’s evidence was found to focus on merchandise and icon licensing rather than exposure to the trade mark itself as a badge of origin. Modest social engagement figures and limited Australian-specific sales or advertising data meant the requisite level of reputation was not established. 

• Reputation is irrelevant under ss 43 and 60. The decision is a useful reminder that reputation-based arguments have no place in an assessment on deceptive similarity, which is a distinct, comparison between the marks themselves. 

The case is a neat illustration of how much weight a single prefix, and a well-evidenced (or under-evidenced) reputation case, can carry in trade mark disputes. Although, I suspect the outcome would have been the same even if the Opponent had filed sufficient evidence to show it did have a strong reputation in Australia in its emoji marks, even if that reputation were in financial technology or software. 

If you want to register a trade mark with a common word but aren’t sure about its distinctiveness or similarity to prior marks, our team is happy to assist. 

Need Trade Mark Help?

Please get in touch with us today via phone or the contact form on this page.

1800 820 083