From Christmas chocolates in the UK to non-alcoholic drinks in Australia, familiar words can become a source of brand conflict and broader online commentary.
Familiar names under scrutiny
Can you be sued for using a product name that sounds descriptive?
Potentially. A business may face allegations of trade mark infringement even where a product name appears descriptive or commonly used. Whether infringement occurs depends on factors such as how the term is used, the goods involved, and whether the word is being used as a trade mark. As the recent SNOWBALLS and SPRITZ disputes demonstrate, words that seem like natural choices for a product can still attract challenges from businesses that hold trade mark rights in those terms. This is why product names should be included in trade mark clearance processes alongside core brand names before products go to market.
With Christmas approaching, a disagreement over a chocolate product name has attracted attention well beyond the confectionery aisle. Cadbury’s owner, Mondelēz International, has reportedly asked British dairy-free chocolate maker Moo Free to stop selling its “White Choccy Snowballs”, alleging infringement of its registered trade marks SNOWBALL and SNOWBALLS.
Closer to home, Bickford’s and Noot Drinks are in a dispute over SPRITZ. Bickford’s holds an Australian registration for SPRITZ for non-alcoholic soft drinks, and has brought Federal Court proceedings alleging infringement in relation to Noot’s use of “Negroni Spritz” and “Limoncello Spritz”.
Different disputes at different stages
Mondelēz has said that no legal proceedings have been commenced and that it is open to an amicable resolution. Moo Free disputes that infringement has been established.
The SPRITZ dispute, meanwhile, has progressed to litigation. Noot’s position includes an argument that “Spritz” is not being used as a trade mark, but rather is being used descriptively. The published decisions address procedural and evidentiary matters, and no final determination has been made on the infringement claim.
Although the disputes arise in different markets and legal settings, both offer a useful perspective on the commercial tensions surrounding familiar product names.
When familiar language meets existing rights
What happens if a product name infringes a trade mark?
A rights holder may send a cease-and-desist letter, request that use of the name stop, negotiate a resolution or commence legal proceedings. Even where litigation does not occur, businesses may incur significant costs through rebranding, packaging changes and product recalls. The SNOWBALLS and SPRITZ disputes demonstrate that even product names based on familiar words can lead to enforcement action, creating disruption and expense long before any court reaches a final decision.
Both disputes involve an established rights holder objecting to another business’s use of a familiar word in a product name. They highlight the tension that can arise when language that feels like a natural choice for a product also forms part of another trader’s brand portfolio.
When developing a new range, businesses understandably devote considerable attention to the main brand. Individual product names may receive less scrutiny, particularly where they draw on familiar seasonal language, flavours or shapes. Yet those names can carry substantial investment of their own.
The practical lesson is to consider product names as part of the trade mark clearance process before committing to packaging, promotional material and retailer listings. A name’s familiarity should prompt an assessment of its availability, rather than an assumption that it is free to use.
Timing matters. Identifying a potential conflict while a name is still under development gives a business greater flexibility to respond. Once stock has been produced and launch commitments made, even a dispute that never reaches court can cause significant commercial disruption.
Protecting the brand beyond the legal claim
Enforcement also has a communication dimension. Brand owners invest in building recognition and have a commercial interest in protecting it. For a business receiving a demand, the immediate concern may be the cost and disruption of changing a product name.
When a dispute becomes public, customers often encounter these competing perspectives through headlines and social media, without access to the underlying correspondence or the full circumstances. The tone, timing and scope of an enforcement approach can therefore influence perceptions of the brand itself.
A consideration before the next launch
Should businesses check product names as well as brand names?
Yes. Many businesses carefully clear their company and master brand names but devote less attention to individual product names. The same trade mark risks can arise in relation to product names, flavours, seasonal ranges and limited-edition releases. As the recent SNOWBALLS and SPRITZ disputes demonstrate, a product name can become the focal point of a trade mark conflict, even where the underlying brand itself is not in dispute.
SNOWBALLS and SPRITZ offer a shared reminder that product naming deserves attention early in the development process.
For businesses launching products, that means assessing availability before investment and commitments accumulate.
For rights holders, it means considering how enforcement supports the brand’s broader commercial interests.
A familiar name may seem an intuitive choice. Establishing whether it is available is an essential step before making it part of the brand.
The key takeaway
Businesses are often surprised to discover that words chosen because they seem familiar, descriptive or intuitive may already form part of another trader’s registered trade mark portfolio. By the time a conflict is identified, significant investment may already have been made in packaging, marketing materials, retailer listings and launch activities.
Taking a strategic approach to trade mark clearance can help reduce these risks. At Pearce IP, we regularly assist clients with trade mark availability assessments, clearance searches and brand protection strategies covering not only company and house brands, but also individual product names, sub-brands, line extensions and future product ranges. Identifying potential issues early in the development process provides greater flexibility and can help avoid costly rebranding exercises, launch delays and trade mark disputes further down the track.
Contact Pearce IP for assistance with clearance, protection and management of a new product or brand in Australia, New Zealand or internationally. Use our Contact Form or email us at info@pearceIP.law or call Australia Tel: +61 (0) 2 9023 9988 or New Zealand Tel: +64 (4) 886 1199.
About Pearce IP
Pearce IP is a privately owned/independent, specialist, life-sciences focussed, intellectual property/law firm offering lawyers and attorneys in Australia and New Zealand.
Our lawyers and attorneys specialise in pharma, biopharma, biotech, ag-tech, food-tech, med-tech, although our work is broader than these industries.
Pearce IP and its leaders are ranked in every notable legal directory including: Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, MIP IP Stars, Doyles Guide, WTR 1000, Best Lawyers, WIPR Leaders, Best Law Firms, among others. In 2025, Pearce IP was honoured by Australasian Lawyer and New Zealand Lawyer as a Top Specialist Firm, 5 Star Employer of Choice, and the “Standout Winner” for Inclusion and Culture (<100 employees).
Pearce IP is the only leading IP firm in Australia and New Zealand with a female founder, and is certified by WEConnect International as women owned.
Sally Paterson
Executive, Lawyer (NZ), Patent & Trade Mark Attorney (AU, NZ)
Sally is a senior Trans-Tasman Patent and Trade Mark Attorney, and a New Zealand registered lawyer with over 20 years’ experience in IP. Sally’s particular expertise is in life sciences, drawing from her background in biological sciences. Sally is well respected in the New Zealand IP community for her broad ranging skills in all aspects of intellectual property advice, protection and enforcement. Sally has extensive experience securing registration for patents, designs and trade marks in New Zealand, Australia and internationally, providing strategic infringement, validity and enforceability opinions, acting in contentious disputes including matters before the courts of New Zealand and before IPONZ and IP Australia, and advising on copyright and consumer law matters.
Naomi Pearce
CEO, Executive Lawyer (AU, NZ), Patent & Trade Mark Attorney (Trans Tasman)
Naomi is the CEO and Founder of Pearce IP, and is one of ANZ’s leading IP practitioners. Naomi is a market leading, strategic, commercially astute, patent lawyer, patent attorney and trade mark attorney, with over 29 years’ experience, and a background in molecular biology/biochemistry.
Ranked in virtually every notable legal directory, highly regarded by peers and clients, Naomi is renowned for her successful and elegant IP/legal strategies focussing on complex/multijurisdictional litigation, global FTO, and strategic advice. Among other awards, Naomi is the 2026 Lexology Client Choice Winner for Patents, the 2024 Lawyers Weekly Women in Law “Executive of the Year”, the 2023 Lawyers Weekly “IP Partner of the Year”, the 2022 Lexology Client Choice Winner for Life Sciences, the 2022 Asia Pacific Women in Business Law “Patent Lawyer of the Year”, and the 2021 Lawyers Weekly Women in Law “Partner of the Year”. Ranked in Chambers Asia Pacific, Chambers Global, IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, is a MIP “Patent Star”, and is recognised as a WIPR Leader for patents and trade marks.
Pearce IP is the premier life sciences focussed firm in ANZ. Commencing in 2017. Pearce IP is the 2025 Australasian Lawyer and NZ Lawyer 5-Star Employer of Choice & “Standout Winner” for Inclusion and Culture (<100 employees). In 2021, Pearce IP was the Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards IP Team of the Year.
Sarah Ramsey-Caudle
Sarah Ramsey-Caudle is a senior intellectual property lawyer and registered Trans-Tasman Trade Mark Attorney with nearly a decade of experience advising on brand protection, enforcement and commercialisation in Australia, New Zealand and internationally.
Sarah specialises in trade marks and brand protection, including clearance and filing strategies, portfolio management, prosecution, oppositions, non-use proceedings, infringement and enforcement, copyright, licensing and IP commercialisation.
She has advised some of the world’s leading consumer brands, with particular expertise in cosmetics, fashion, retail, food and beverage, and supply chain sectors. Sarah is known for her responsive, commercial and pragmatic approach, providing clear advice aligned with broader business objectives.
Sarah has experience in contentious matters before the Australian Trade Marks Office and Federal Court of Australia. She holds a Master of Intellectual Property Law from the University of Melbourne, a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Bachelor of Commerce (International Business) from the University of Adelaide, and is a member of IPSANZ.