Felipe Drumond, 41, from Kendall on the New South Wales Mid North Coast, launched his own glass-protective coating, RioGuard, in July this year. With more than a decade of experience cleaning windows, he saw an opportunity to meet clients’ growing interest in stain prevention and created a product coupled with a squeegee for application.
Three weeks after RioGuard hit the market, Drumond received a letter from PCT Global, the manufacturer of EnduroShield, alleging that his product and packaging were “almost identical” to theirs. The company demanded he hand over his client list and provide detailed profit figures.
Drumond, a father of two, said he was shocked by the legal action. “They probably think I’m making a killing, but I’m not,” he said in a statement. Initially, considering compliance, he changed course after realising the requests for financial and client information were excessive. He engaged a lawyer and intends to defend his business in court.
PCT Global, which has offices worldwide and supplies products to projects such as One World Trade Center in New York, declined to comment. The company’s statement of claim alleges Drumond has made false or misleading representations and is attempting to “pass off” RioGuard as its own product, claiming this breaches Australian consumer law.
University of Technology Sydney trademark and patent expert Sarah Hook said cases like this were common. “This is part of protecting their IP,” she told ABC. “They are not considering whether the competitor is small or large; it’s about defending intellectual property.” Hook explained that “passing off” involves misleading the public into believing a product is affiliated with another company and requires evidence of reputation and misrepresentation. She compared the case to a 1980 dispute between Cadbury and Pub Squash, in which the court ruled consumers were not deceived despite similarities in packaging.
Drumond disputes the claims, noting that the RioGuard brand is prominent on his packaging and that the squeegee differs in colour and design. He also said that prior purchases of EnduroShield products under different email addresses were irrelevant to the court’s assessment.
The case is set to be heard in the Federal Court on 5 February 2026. Photo: Wiriya Sati
