Sage Advice from the Federal Court: Stylisation of Collab Marks
In Paige v Sage and Paige1, the Federal Court considered the existence of brand collaborations in the fashion industry, colloquially known as “collabs”, in assessing the deceptive similarity of trade marks.
US-based fashion house Paige LLC (Paige) appealed the Delegate’s dismissal of its opposition to the registration of the following trade mark applications in the name of Australian-based online clothing retailer Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd (S+P):
(S+P Marks).
Paige owns, amongst other marks, standalone word marks for PAIGE in classes 3 and 18 filed before the S+P Marks (Paige Marks).
No Finding of Deceptive Similarity
In its opposition, Paige relied on the following sections of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth):
- s 44 – that the S+P Marks were substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the Paige Marks; and
- s 60 – that the reputation of the Paige Marks is such that use of the S+P Marks would be likely to deceive or confuse.
Both grounds were decided in favour of S+P. However, a particular issue before the court was the impact of “collabs” as a fashion trend, with Paige arguing that “at least some consumers with knowledge of [the Paige Marks] would be caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that [the S+P Marks] represent a collaboration between PAIGE and another brand, designer, or celebrity going under Sage”.2
Although the Court concluded that collabs are an essential tenet of the fashion industry and widely understood by consumers, and this is a relevant surrounding circumstance in determining the question of deceptive similarity,3 the Court was ultimately not convinced of Paige’s argument. In assessing whether consumers would be caused to wonder whether the S+P Marks were a collaboration between Paige and another entity, Needham J considered:4
- The positioning of “Sage” as the first element in the S+P Marks;
- The vertical stacking of the two names in S+P Mark no. 2094275, which was uncommon with collabs;
- The uniform stylization and weight of the “Sage” and “Paige” elements in the S+P Marks; and
- The use of a plus sign instead of the more common “x” in collabs,
which combined to give the impression of a singular brand, rather than two separate, collaborating brands.
Paige’s reputational argument also fell short, with Needham J finding that Paige’s “limited evidence of marketing in Australia and the failure to keep country-specific records underlines a general lack of focus on the Australian market”.5
Key takeaways
Despite the Paige Marks being wholly incorporated in the S+P Marks, neither this nor the prevalence of “collabs” in the fashion industry was enough to save the day. With “collabs” being commonplace, it is imperative that businesses are aware of the double-edged sword that collabs may present. Businesses should therefore seek professional advice as to their trade mark strategy and how best to achieve brand extensions through collaborations.
On 22 August 2025, Needham J dismissed S+P’s application for indemnity costs.6
By Rachelle Downie, Amelia-Rose Booth and Amber Meyer
Footnotes:
1 Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750. For the Delegate’s decision, see Paige, LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 57.
2 Ibid at [9].
3 Ibid at [84].
4 Ibid at [88]-[89].
5 Ibid [110].
6 Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd (Costs) [2025] FCA 988.