This article is from the Australian Property Journal archive
LISTED property group Lifestyle Communities has launched legal action against Stockland in the Federal Court over explosive allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.
Lifestyle Communities is suing Stockland for trademark infringement relating to Stockland’s use of the trademarked brand ‘Lifestyle Communities®.’
Lifestyle Communities first registered the words “Lifestyle Communities” in 2004 (it was accepted and became a protected trademark in 2005); it then registered “Lifestyle Communities” with a logo in 2006 which was also accepted by IP Australia soon after.
Both the words and logo are protected under international trademark law.
Lifestyle Communities cofounder and managing director James Kelly allege Stockland has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by using the trademarked brand, ‘Lifestyle Communities®’, which he said was a direct attempt to draw upon the success of Lifestyle Communities’ unique brand built up over 20 years of operating in the land lease industry.
The company has traded as Lifestyle Communities® since its inception in 2003 and now has 30 communities either under management or being developed with over 5,000 customers.
“Lifestyle Communities was created as a business for purpose with a social and ethical mission to strike the right balance by providing high-quality affordable housing to our customers, and sustainable returns to our shareholders. We’ve dedicated over two decades to building our unique brand, Lifestyle Communities and don’t understand why Stockland continues to use our brand in its marketing when there are any number of alternative options for them to use, including their own brand,” said Kelly.
On the other side of the arena, is Stockland, a $10 billion diversified property group which entered the land lease market via the acquisition of existing operator Halcyon Communities.
Since that time, Lifestyle Communities alleges Stockland has created confusion for consumers by extensively using the Lifestyle Communities brand in its marketing, on its website, in its Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and Search Engine Marketing (SEM) activities, and in paid content.
“When Stockland initially entered the market, we extended a warm welcome by giving their team multiple tours of our communities and providing valuable advice and support. The supply of affordable housing in Australia is at crisis levels and Lifestyle Communities cannot service this large challenge on its own. We were excited by the prospect of operators like Stockland helping to grow the land lease sector whilst maintaining the highest levels of governance and care for customers. We firmly believe that collaborative efforts with companies like Stockland can significantly expand the land lease industry and make a significant contribution to this national challenge,”
Lifestyle Communities is seeking Court orders for Stockland:
- To cease using and never in the future use ‘Lifestyle Community/ies’ or any sign which is confusingly similar to the Lifestyle Communities Marks, as a trade mark, business name, company name, domain name, trading name, software application name, social media account name or identifier, key word or AdWord (whether on its website, in its marketing materials, customer contracts, explanatory materials or otherwise howsoever);
- To never in the future apply to register as a trademark, business name, company name, domain name, trading name, software application name, social media account name or identifier, key word or AdWord or other word, mark, sign or device which is identical with or confusingly similar to any of the Lifestyle Communities marks;
- And to immediately cease and forever desist from making any misleading representations, on Stockland’s website or in other advertising, suggesting that Stockland’s product/service/business is associated with, endorsed by, or in some way connected to Lifestyle Communities.
“All we have ever asked in return is for Stockland to not use our brand,”
“Lifestyle Communities and Halcyon Communities have co-existed for almost 20 years prior to Stockland’s ownership and we have never had this issue with Halcyon before. It is perplexing to us why Stockland insist on utilising our brand.
“Whilst we welcome fair competition, businesses operating within the market must adopt different and distinctive brands in order to avoid the prospect of consumer confusion,” he continued.
Kelly said the company had sought to resolve the matter, without success.
“We have made numerous attempts to resolve this issue directly but our requests have not elicited a positive or constructive response and we are left with little choice but to engage Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel in the Federal Court to protect our brand and avoid confusion for customers.” Kelly concluded.
Australian Property Journal reached out to Stockland for comment.
A spokesperson said, “We have received notice of a statement of claim. Given the matter is now before the Court, we won’t be making any further comment.”
