06 July 2026
Changing one letter does not always create a new brand.
That is the key lesson from the recent Australian Trade Marks Office decision involving GHOST and GHXST.
Brooks Sports opposed an application for GHXST covering clothing, footwear and headgear. Brooks relied on its reputation in GHOST, used for running shoes in Australia.
The applicant did not file evidence.
Brooks succeeded.
The Trade Marks Office accepted that Brooks had built a reputation in GHOST for sports shoes, including runners. Even though GHOST was often used with other branding, such as product names and model numbers, it was still recognised as a sub-brand.
Then came the obvious question:
Is GHXST too close to GHOST?
The answer was yes.
The marks were visually similar. Replacing the “O” with an “X” was not enough. The Office considered that consumers would still see GHXST as a word and may pronounce or understand it in a way that brings GHOST to mind.
That matters because trade mark confusion is not judged like a spelling test.
Consumers do not compare brands side by side with perfect attention. They remember impressions. They notice sounds, shapes, ideas and commercial context. A stylised spelling may look clever in a branding presentation, but that does not mean it is legally safe.
This decision is especially useful for fashion, footwear, wellness, sport and streetwear brands.
Those industries often use deliberate misspellings, dropped vowels, swapped letters and edgy typography. That can make a brand feel modern. But it can also create risk if the new mark still points too closely to an existing brand.
The decision also shows how reputation can travel.
Brooks’ reputation was in footwear, but the application covered broader clothing and related goods. The Office accepted that consumers may expect a sports shoe brand to expand into activewear, apparel or related merchandise. That made confusion more likely.
This is a common trap.
A founder might think:
“We are not selling the exact same product.”
“Our spelling is different.”
“Our logo looks cooler.”
“We use an X instead of an O.”
“We are targeting a different audience.”
None of that is necessarily enough.
When assessing trade mark risk, the real question is whether ordinary consumers may wonder if there is a connection between the two brands.
That connection might be sponsorship. Collaboration. Licensing. A diffusion line. A related company. A new product range. A brand extension.
The risk is not limited to identical marks or identical goods.
For businesses choosing a new brand, the practical takeaway is clear: clearance searches need to go beyond exact matches.
A proper trade mark clearance should check:
-
similar spellings;
-
sound-alike marks;
-
look-alike marks;
-
marks with similar ideas;
-
stylised or misspelled versions;
-
related goods and services;
-
brands with strong reputation in adjacent markets.
The GHXST decision is a reminder that brand creativity still needs legal discipline.
A strong brand should be memorable, distinctive and commercially usable. But it also needs to be available. If the name is too close to an existing reputation, a business may face opposition, delay, rebrand costs or enforcement action.
That can be expensive.
It can also be avoidable.
IP Solved works with businesses to clear, register and protect trade marks before launch. If you are choosing a new brand name, product name or sub-brand, especially in a crowded market, it is worth testing the risk before you invest in packaging, websites, social handles, signage and marketing. A small clearance step early can prevent a much bigger brand problem later.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Specific advice should be obtained for your business and product.
