Fashion, Trade Marks, and ‘Collab’ Culture: Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750
By Georgia Renard | Associate
In a decision that underscores the evolving nature of branding and consumer perception in the international fashion industry, Justice Needham of the Federal Court of Australia has dismissed an appeal by US fashion house Paige LLC against the registration of two trade marks by Australian retailer Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd.
The decision considers whether the marks “Sage + Paige” were deceptively similar to Paige LLC’s existing trade mark registrations under sections 44 and 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
The Dispute
Los Angeles-based fashion company Paige LLC opposed two Australian trade mark applications (No. 2094275 and No. 2094276) filed by Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd, arguing that the inclusion of “Paige” in the trade mark would mislead consumers into believing there was a connection or collaboration with the PAIGE brand.
Paige LLC is known for its premium denim and fashion apparel and claimed that its reputation in Australia warranted protection.
The “Collab” Argument
Central to Paige’s case was the idea that consumers might interpret “Sage + Paige” as a collaboration between brands.
Collaborations are a common feature of fashion branding; examples of recent well-known collaborations include Karl Lagerfeld × H&M in 2004, Fenty x Puma beginning in 2015 and relaunched in 2023, and Marc Jacobs × Wizard of Oz in 2024.
Paige argued that the use of “+” between two names suggested a joint venture or product line involving PAIGE and another entity named Sage. This was supported by evidence from Paige who pointed to examples of brand collaborations and media references to PAIGE.
However, Justice Needham found that the stylisation and structure of the Sage + Paige marks undermined this argument. The use of “Sage” as the first element, the uniform styling of both names, and the use of “+” rather than the more typical “x” used in collaborations were all factors that weighed against the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Additionally, the vertical stacking of “SAGE” and “PAIGE” in one of the applications was not consistent with how collaborations are usually presented in the fashion industry.
Section 44: No Deceptive Similarity
Under section 44, the court considered whether the marks were substantially identical or deceptively similar. Needham J accepted that “Paige” is a given name and not descriptive of the goods or services.
The court stated that even if a reputation existed, Paige LLC goods were limited to denim, and the differences in pricing, branding and style of clothing would reduce likelihood of consumer confusion between the two companies.
Ultimately, Needham J concluded that the Sage + Paige marks were not deceptively similar to Paige LLC’s registered marks.
Section 60: Reputation Falls Short
Paige LLC also relied on section 60, arguing that its reputation in Australia should prevent registration of the Sage + Paige marks. While Paige presented global sales figures and marketing efforts, the court found that its reputation in Australia as of the priority date of the trade marks at issue (17 June 2020) was limited.
Despite over US$8 million in Australian sales between 2015 and 2019, this was a small fraction of its global sales of US$580 million. The lack of country-specific marketing data and limited promotional activity in Australia also weakened Paige’s claim.
Needham J concluded that Paige LLC did not have a sufficient reputation in Australia at the relevant time. Even if a limited reputation in denim existed, it was not enough to establish a likelihood of deception or confusion.
Needham J ultimately found that consumers were more likely to view Sage + Paige as a distinct brand rather than a variant or collaboration involving PAIGE. The Federal Court upheld the Delegate’s original decision allowing the registration of the Sage + Paige marks and the appeal was dismissed.
This case ultimately emphasises the importance of ensuring that, when enforcing trade marks abroad, you have evidence of a strong local presence in order to rely on section 60.
If you’d like to learn more about the trade mark process in Australia, connect with us at XVII Degrees.
References
- Applicant v Respondent [2025] FCA 750. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2025/750.html
Photo by Lolita Timoshek on Unsplash
