Small Australian Bakery Faces Trademark Battle with Cinnabon
Table of Contents
A Melbourne-based cinnamon scroll maker is locked in a legal dispute with global bakery chain Cinnabon over its business name. The American giant, boasting nearly 2,000 stores worldwide and 26 locations across Australia, has demanded the smaller, family-run business rebrand within ten days, alleging trademark infringement.
David vs. Goliath: A Battle Over Two Letters
The core of the conflict lies in the similarity of the names – Cinnabon and Cinnabuns. Despite being separated by just two letters, Cinnabon asserts that the Australian bakery has violated a trademark it has maintained since the 1980s. This legal challenge highlights the aggressive protection of intellectual property, even when a smaller business operates with no prior knowledge of the larger brand.
Owner’s Shock and Disappointment
Mike Ying, the owner of Cinnabuns, expressed his surprise and frustration upon receiving the legal notice. “I was very disappointed to receive a legal letter from Cinnabon, a company I had never heard of,” he stated, adding, “I feel like I have to fight against a big name. We are just a small family business.” Ying, who honed his baking skills in France before establishing his business in Australia over a decade ago, is now grappling with the prospect of a costly and disruptive rebrand.
Legal Arguments and the Risk of Consumer Confusion
Lawyers representing Cinnabon argued in a cease and desist notice that the name Cinnabuns is “aurally, visually and phonetically similar to Cinnabon.” This similarity, they contend, creates “a real chance that the conduct will, or has the potential to, confuse or deceive consumers, and therefore constitute trademark infringement.”
Belinda Sigismundi, a principal at Macpherson Kelley specializing in intellectual property, explained the broader implications of trademark law. “Trademarks are fiercely protected by companies,” she said. “Trademarks can include brand names, shapes, colours and even scents that held significant value for businesses.” She cited examples like Christian Louboutin’s trademarked red shoe sole and Toblerone’s distinctive packaging shape, illustrating the breadth of protection afforded to established brands. “If a consumer can be confused, then a trademark infringement is likely to be made out,” Sigismundi emphasized.
Due Diligence and the ASIC Business Register
The case underscores a critical lesson for small businesses. Sigismundi cautioned that simply finding a name available on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) business register doesn’t guarantee it’s free from existing trademark protections. “I think the main lesson small businesses should take away is don’t get too wedded to a name until you’ve done your proper due diligence,” she advised.
Ying has appealed to his customer base for assistance in brainstorming a new business name, acknowledging the challenging situation. Cinnabon, through its legal counsel, declined to provide a comment on the matter.
This dispute serves as a stark reminder of the power imbalances that can exist in the business world and the importance of thorough legal checks before establishing a brand identity.
Keep reading
