X hits on this document

108 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

25 / 31

(b)

What is the effect of ‘intention to deceive’?

Intention to deceive is not required

Australian Woollen Mills v FS Walton & Co (1937) 58 CLR 641

(c)Misrepresentation in the context of ‘character merchandising’

General discussion of principles: RR 2005 at 906-912

* Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited (1989) ATPR 40-948 (RR 2005 at 906-907)

*Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 (discussed in MBG 2007 at 650 and 509-512; RR 2005 at 892-894)

*Hogan v Koala Dundee (1988) 83 ALR 187; 12 IPR 508 (RR 2005 at 908)

*Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 451 (Duff Beer case) (RR 2005 at 908)

(d)Disclaimers

What effect does a disclaimer have?

(5)3rd Requirement – Damage

Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354

B.Related statutory actions

(a)

Relevant statutes and provisions

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth):  ss52 and 53

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW):  ss42 and 43

(b)

Section 52 TPA

* Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 (RR 2005 at 914-918)

Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 16 IPR 431 at 440 (Hill J) (RR 2005 at 922-923)

* Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481 (RR 2005 at 918-921)

(i)‘trade or commerce’

Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594

(ii)Identify the ‘misrepresentation’ said to arise

Identifying what the misrepresentation might be also involves considering what the reputation is of the plaintiff’s good/service

Does reputation need to be established in all cases?  Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 at [34].

(iii)‘misleading or deceptive’

Who must be misled or deceived?  

Document info
Document views108
Page views108
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 17:59:33 UTC 2017
Pages31
Paragraphs1133
Words8078

Comments