The court found that Canna Campbell, the founder of SugarMamma.TV and SASS Financial, infringed on the trademark of Rhondalynn Korolak, founder and chief executive of Businest, through the use of “Financial Foreplay” in the title of Ms Campbell’s podcast.
Ms Korolak claimed that, from around 12 February 2020 to around May 2021 and beyond, Ms Campbell and SASS Financial infringed Ms Korolak’s registered trademark. Additionally, she alleged that, by using the words “Financial Foreplay”, Ms Campbell and SASS engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive.
In February 2017, Intellectual Property Australia granted Ms Korolak the trademark for the term “Financial Foreplay”, which is branding that Ms Korolak had been using since the release of her book, Financial Foreplay, in 2009. This included the use of YouTube and Instagram accounts under the name “Financial Foreplay”.
Ms Campbell launched her podcast, SugarMamma’s Financial Foreplay, in June 2020. She subsequently renamed the podcast to SugarMamma’s Financial Fireplay, before moving to the current title, SugarMamma’s Fireplay.
In his determination, Judge Nicholas Manousaridis found that Ms Campbell, by producing and making available to the public the Financial Foreplay podcasts, she had “provided services that constituted ‘advisory services relating to finance’, ‘advisory services relating to financial matters’, and ‘advisory services relating to money management’, being services in relation to which the Trade Mark has been registered”.
“The respondents, in relation to those services have used the words, ‘Financial Foreplay’, being words that are identical with the Trade Mark, and the words ‘SugarMamma’s Financial Foreplay’, being words that are substantially identical to, or deceptively similar to the Trade Mark. For these reasons, therefore, there has been an infringement of the Trade Mark,” Judge Manousaridis said.
While Ms Korolak has sought damages for the infringement, Judge Manousaridis has not made any orders related to costs.
“I will not make any order in relation to costs until after I afford the parties an opportunity to make submissions,” he said.
“The only orders I propose to make is to direct the parties to file and serve submissions on the orders I should make to give effect to these reasons, and on costs.”
Ms Korolak said Ms Campbell had previously received two adverse examination reports from IP Australia.
She added that she has taken further action through the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA), claiming that Ms Campbell breached the Code of Conduct.
“As a licensed financial planner and member of FAAA, Ms Campbell is bound by a Code of Conduct to act with integrity, objectivity, and fairness,” Ms Korolak told ifa.
“As a result of this litigation, a complaint has been raised and there is an open investigation by the FAAA into this matter.”
As a FAAA member, I’d much prefer my money used elsewhere. You know, such as fighting legislators and regulators and advancing the financial advice profession.
Fascinating!
Surely the FAAA would serve everyone’s interests better if the focused on advocating for the industry instead of arbitrary attacks on their adviser members. The court is the best place for this type of dispute.
There’d be no attacks on members if they were honest and had integrity! When you understand the facts in this case, you’ll understand why the court found in favour of Rhondlynn Korolack.
So better to be unlicensed?
Who is saying that? The point is that we should want all our members to meet the duty of care that we all agreed to meet when we became members.
The court cannot adjudicate on a matter of the FAAA duty of conduct. Why have a duty of care if it’s not enforced for the protection of members and clients?