Volcano (International) Medical AB & Ors v. Vulkan (Australasia) Medical Pty Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 494
Federal Court of Australia
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
AM —
Trade Practices - misleading or deceptive conduct - Australian
distributor marketing Swedish product under compound trade name -
use of part of name by respondent for its similar Australian-made
product - comparison of get-up - Whether respondent had
sufficiently distinguished its product - likelihood of mistaken
belief by retailers or purchasers that respondent's products are
from same source as applicants' products - pendent claim for
passing off - cross~claim - respondent seeking order directing
applicants to publish a retraction of a notice distributed by
them to retailers containing false and damaging allegations
against respondent.
Trade Practices Act 1974 - ss.52,53.
VOLCANO (INTERNATIONAL) MEDICAL AB & ORS v VULKAN (AUSTRALASIA)
MEDICAL PTY. LIMITED & ORS
G191 of 1985
CORAM: Bowen C.J.
Sydney
20 September 1985
—
we tee
ote 7 -
eacpe ceit ep mp ery
eat uaa aduateematenetenienen Cac auteieeacalier aeeaaee
. Bb tl
=
i
Volcano (International) Medical AB, Australian Sporting
Sales Pty. Limited and Kjell Nilsson pay to Vulkan
(Australasia) Medical Pty. Limited, Mark McLaurin-Smith
and Thermoskin International Medical Pty. Limited their
costs of the application including their costs of the
interim injunction.
The cross-claim be stood over to a date to be fixed to
enable the cross-claimants to bring in short minutes of
order.
Each party has liberty to apply on two days notice.
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36
of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G191 of 1985
GENERAL DIVISTON
JUDGE MAKING ORDER:
WHERE MADE:
DATE:
Sydney
)
) '
BETWEEN :
VOLCANO (INTERNATIONAL) MEDICAL AB,
AUSTRALIAN SPORTING SALES PTY.
LIMITED,
KJELL NILSSON
Applicants
AND:
VULKAN (AUSTRALASIA) MEDICAL PTY.
LIMITED
First Respondent
AND:
MARK McLAURIN-SMITH
Second Respondent
AND:
THERMOSKIN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL
PTY. LIMITED
Third Respondent
Bowen C.d.
20 September 1985
MINUTE OF QRDER
The application be dismissed.
The
interim
injunction ordered against Vulk
ee ee |
ey ey . a ee nF er er er rs ee yas t sy
Tp ee
an
(Australasia) Medical Pty. Limited, Mark McLaurin-Smith i
and Thermoskin International Pty. Limited be discharged.
were oe eee
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G191 of 1985
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN :
VOLCANO (INTERNATIONAL) MEDICAL AB,
AUSTRALIAN SPORTING SALES PTY.
LIMITED,
KJELL NILSSON
Applicants
AND:
VULKAN (AUSTRALASIA) MEDICAL PTY.
LIMITED
First Respondent
AND:
MARK McLAURIN-SMITH
Second Respondent
AND:
THERMOSKIN INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL
PIY. LIMITED
Third Respondent
CORAM: Bowen C.J.
20 September 1985
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for injunctive and other relief
under ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act and also for
passing off. The application concerns the use of the name
"Thermoskin" on goods.
g
The matter came before this Court recently for
determination of the question whether interlocutory relief should
be granted. An early hearing of the substantive case was offered
to the parties. Thereupon, by consent and without admissions
upon the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages
injunctions were granted restraining the respondents until
further order from trading in the manner complained of.
At the commencement of the hearing before me it became
apparent that the first respondent Vulkan (Australasia) Medical
Pty. Limited was no longer trading in the disputed products and
had not done so since 9 August 1985 when a company Thermoskin
International Medical Pty. Limited was incorporated and commenced
trading. The applicants obtained leave to amend their statement
of claim by joining Thermoskin International Medical Pty. Limited
as third respondent and by adding or amending allegations and
claims for relief in the statement of claim to refer to it. The
respondents amended their notice of defence to deal with this
situation. It was stated by counsel for the respondents that
since 19 August 1985 when the interlocutory injunction was
granted there had been no trading by Thermoskin International
Medical Pty. Limited in the disputed product as a matter of grace
rather than obligation. Upon the applicants giving the usual
undertaking as to damages I made orders restraining the third
respondent until further order in terms similar to the
interlocutory injunction previously granted against the first two
respondents. ~ ns
Pe
"9!
Volcano (International) Medical AB, the first applicant
(Volcano International) is a company established under the laws
of Sweden which manufactures a range of body protectors made of a
elastic material and stitched in a special way so as to enable
expansion and contraction to take place. Since early in 1984 it
has exported these goods to Australia. Sporting Sales Pty.
Limited, the second applicant, (Sporting Sales) is a company
incorporated in New South Wales, which distributes sporting goods
throughout Australia. Sporting Sales and Kjell Nilsson, the
third applicant, are currently the importers and distributors of
the Voicano International body protectors in Australia.
In the latter part of 1983 Mr. Nilsson visited Sweden
and had talks with Per Tranberg the president of Volcano
International. Subsequently in March 1984 an agreement was
entered into between Volcano International Medical AB of the one
part and Otology Services Pty. Limited (pending name change to
Vulkan (Australasia) Medical Pty. Limited) of the other part
whereby Volcano International granted to Otology Services (Vulkan
Australasia) the exclusive right during the continuance in force
of the agreement to purchase for resale in the territory
specified in the schedule the products of Volcano International
subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The period
of the agreement was one year (in case of written notice six
months in advance from one of the parties) otherwise five years.
The agreement contained a provision that Volcano International
should have the right at any time by giving notice in writing to
PTINE ee er
aap
the distributor to terminate the agreement forthwith if the
distributor committed a breach. The territory according to the
schedule included Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia,
Hong Kong, Indonesia and New Guinea.
By an agreement between Volcano International and Vulkan
Australasia dated 25 December 1984 the agreement of March 1984
was varied. The term was extended and the Territory was thereby
defined as Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong
Kong, Indonesia, New Guinea, Japan, Mainland China, Korea,
Philippines, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain,
Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Iraq and the United States of America.
By agreement dated 1 March 1984 #£between Vulkan
(Australasia) Pty. Limited and Australian Sporting Sales Pty.
Limited, Vulkan Australasia granted to Australian Sporting the
exclusive distribution rights to the Australian sporting goods
retail industry for ail Vulkan heat protection products as
portrayed and described in an attached brochure. It was provided
that Vulkan Australasia or its authorised distributors would
distribute to and service all other types of outlets other than
the Australian sporting goods retail industry outlet. The
contract was to commence on 1 March 1984 and terminate on 28
February 1987.
During March 1984 meetings were held between Mark
McLaurin-Smith and Kjell Nilsson, the principals of Vulkan
a cen tae ty teem
Australasia, Les Miller, General Manager of Australian Sporting,
Gregory Russell, an advertising consultant and John Curran,
Marketing Manager of Australian Sporting, for the purpose of
discussing the promotion of the product and the form and nature
of the advertising to be adopted.
Various drafts of brochures were considered. It was
eventually decided to use in promotion material the
representation of an exploding volcano, the word "Swedish" in
black capitals the word "Vulkan" in large blue capitals and the
word "Thermoskin" in large sloping red capitals. This
combination of the exploding Volcano and the words "Swedish
Vulkan Thermoskin" was thenceforth commonly used in brochures.
The product made in Sweden by Volcano International and imported
by Vulkan Australasia generally had impressed upon the actual
article an exploding volcano over the word "Vulkan" in large
white type. The plastic bag in which each product was wrapped
generally had on the front an exploding volcano with the words
Vulkan Physiclogical Heat Protector (in four languages) and the
words Volcano International Medical AB with an exploding volcano.
On the back were lists of effects claimed to be produced by use
of the product (in four languages) and directions for use (in
x
four languages), a representation of a girl athlete wearing a
knee guard with the representation of products for other parts of
the body and at the bottom the words Volcano International
Medical AB Goteborg - Sverige, a representation of an exploding
volcano and the words "Made in Sweden". The word ""Thermoskin"
he
SF
a
does not appear on the Swedish product or package. It appears to
have been a word devised and used only in Australia in brochures
and other advertising material.
A conflict of evidence arose as to who first suggested
the word "Thermoskin". The Australian distributors were
dissatisfied with the description of the product asa "heat
protector". They were seeking a better descriptive word for the
goods. Mr. Miller claimed he suggested the word "Thermoskin" at
a meeting early in March 1984. He was supported in this claim
by the evidence of Mr. Russell and Mr. Kjell Nilsson. All three
gave evidence that later in March 1984 Mark McLaurin-Smith
suggested the word be spelt "Thermoskiin", with two i's. But
this suggestion was rejected by the meeting and in fact the word
"Thermoskin" was used in the brochures which were issued after
March. Mr. Mark McLaurin-Smith gave evidence that he thought up
the name "Thermoskiin" at a meeting on 21 March 1984 at the
office of Vulkan with Mr. Nilsson and a Mr. Fookes. He denied
that the earlier meetings in March of which Mr. Miller gave
evidence had taken place and denied that Mr. Miller had suggested
"Thermoskin". Mr. Miller's relevant diary entries are in
evidence. They suggest meetings were fixed for the times and
dates deposed to by Mr. Miller. 'In cross-examination Mr.
McLaurin-Smith's diary was produced. It also showed meetings
with Mr. Miller were fixed for the times and dates deposed to by
Mr. Miller. But Mr. McLaurin-Smith swore that although the
entries remained in his diary he did not attend the meetings
|
i |
|
a — ee
h
deposed to by Mr. Miller. I do not find the evidence on either
side on this question completely satisfactory.
The authorship of the word "Thermoskin" might be of some
relevance in proceedings relating to registration of it asa
trade mark. It is better if I express no view upon this
question. It is of little significance in these proceedings
under the Trade Practices Act and for passing off. The public
would have no knowledge of authorship of the word. The fact is
that the word "Thermoskin" was used during 1984 and 1985 in
brochures and some other advertising material issued by Vulkan
Australasia in relation to the distribution of the products of
Volcano International. Any impact upon the public during the
period would have to come from this. There would be no impact
upon a purchaser from inspection of the product or the packaging
of this product since the word ""Thermoskin" was not used upon
that.
On 27 March 1984 Vulkan Australasia applied for
registration of "Thermoskiin" as a trade mark in classes 10 and
25. The application was signed by Mr. McLaurin-Smith. He gave
evidence that he instructed Mr. Nilsson to go to the Trade Marks
Office in January 1985 and make an application to amend the
applications by altering the spelling from two to one "i", so
that it would be spelled "Thermoskin". He said he received a
document from the Canberra Office of the Trade Marks Office
accepting this amendment on about 21 March 1985.
eerie Hae we
7 Tr
yr
woe
7 oa
woe ee
On 11 April 1985 application was made by Vulkan
Australasia for registration of a logo consisting of three
overlapping pyramids.
On 8 July 1985 application was made by Habin Pty.
Limited for registration in class 10 of a trade mark depicting an
exploding volcano and the words "Swedish. Vulcan Thermoskin". It
was suggested Habin Pty. Limited on the same date applied to
register "Vulkan Thermoskin" in class 10 but this application is
not in evidence. Habin Pty. Limited is not a party to these
proceedings, yet it is the company which by its application
Claims to be entitled to registration of the mark depicting the
'
exploding volcano and the words "Swedish Vulcan Thermoskin".
This raises some question as to the claim of the applicants to
this mark. Mr. Miller, General Manager of Australian Sporting
was asked about Habin Pty. Limited in cross-examination.
"You have told me that - perhaps we could
get it clear; what do you say Habin is,
Habin Pty. Limited?-~-I say it was initially,
from my recollection, the shelf company that
was obtained prior to - what shail I say -
the liazson of ASS and Kjell Nilsson.
In terms of the present, are not the
shares in Habin Pty. Limited owned as to one
share by Mr. Nilsson and as to another share
by Australian Sporting Sales Pty.
Limited?---Yes.
Has that company been authorized by you,
Mr. Miller, to make an application for
registration of the trade mark that you see
in front of you?---I think I should explain
that Mr. Nilsson in his capacity as a
director of the company that was handling
Vulkan was assigned by me as far as I was
a Aes
SUE TTT Ieee
chief.
concerned the every-day running of it.
Having contributed a fair amount of effort
into establishing Vulkan, when the situation
changed I rather left it to Kjeli Nilsson to
look after it.
Did you authorize Mr. Nilsson to perm21t
Habin Pty. Limited to make that application
for registration?---I could have but I do not
recall it.
It follows, does it not, Mr. Miller, that
if Habin Pty. Limited is. making an
application for that trade mark that it,
Habin Pty. Limited, claims to be the owner of
it?---That is a logical conclusion, yes."
Later Mr. Nilsson gave evidence. He was examined in
"You have heard some questions here put to
Mr.- Miller in court about a company Habin
Pty. Limited. Are you a shareholder of that
company?---Yes, I am.
How did you come to be a shareholder in
that company?---Together with an agreement
with Mr. Les Miller of Australian Sporting
Sales.
Did you have anything to do with getting
the company from any accountant?---Would you
say again?
How did the company come to be
incorporated, do you know?---It was through
Les Miller's accountant.
There were some questions asked about
trademark applications made by the company.
Are you familiar with those trademark
applications?---Yes, I am.
How did they come to be made?---They came
to be made because when we found out we have
legal legs to stand on regards the Vulkan
thermoskin, particularly thermoskin, I went
down and put an application in in Habin Pty.
Limited's.- name. It has now changed to
Volcano Australia."
softer poo
or
aT
is
~ 10 -
The papers produced by the Registrar of Trade Marks and
tendered in evidence do not reveal a change to Volcano
International and no evidence was led of any relationship between
Habin Pty. Limited and Volcano International. However, I will
proceed upon the basis that if Volcano International had
established rights to the mark "Swedish Vulkan Thermoskin" in
Australia during 1984 and early 1985 it had not transferred or
lost them to Habin Pty. Limited by 8 July 1985.
Two other applications may be mentioned. It was stated
from the Bar table that an application was made on 1 December
1983 for registration of the trade mark "Vulkan" but there
appears to be no evidence relating to this.
There were in evidence the papers relating to the grant
of a petty patent dated 16 February 1984 granted to Volcano
International which had been extended to 1 December 1989. The
patent was for a method of stitching used in the construction of
Volcano International's products. There is no claim in the
proceedings for infringement of patent.
As has been mentioned, during the year 1984 and early
1985 advertising in the form of brochures and leaflets depicting
an exploding volcano and bearing the words "Swedish Vulkan
Thermoskin" was distributed to retailers and others. Also there
was some advertising in The Sun and Mirror newspapers and Fun
Runner magazine,' and a racing magazine. The evidence of this
nec nes
nn lt tet a
-11-
advertising together with evidence of sales of the products
bearing the exploding volcano and the word "Vulkan" and the name
of Volcano International with the statement "made in Sweden",
would lead me to infer that some retailers and perhaps some
customers in Australia would associate the exploding volcano and
the words "Swedish Vulkan Thermoskin" or "Vulkan Thermoskin" with
the product of Volcano International. No witnesses, whether
retailers or purchasers, were called to give evidence of reading
any of this material or stating what they got from it.
There was a falling out between Mr. Nilsson and Mr.
McLaurin-Smith. In March 1985 Mr. Nilsson visited Sweden and had
discussions with Per Tranberg of Volcano International. Volcano
International instructed Messrs. Townsend and Edstein, solicitors
of Sydney, to terminate the two agreements of March 1984 and
December 1984 for breach, in that certain moneys due from Vulkan
Australasia under the agreement had not been paid. By letter
dated 28 March 1985 Messrs. Townsend and Edstein wrote to Vulkan
Australasia terminating the agreement as from the date of the
letter.
There was some dispute whether this was a proper
termination. It is unnecessary to consider the question because
all parties accept that the distribution agreement was at an end
prior to the commencement of the present proceedings. Each party
has since been acting upon that basis. This is not a proceeding
for wrongful termination of the agreement.
ue
worst
eT
- 12-
On 1 April 1985 a fresh distribution agreement was made
between Volcano International, Australian Sporting and Mr.
Nilsson. Thereafter Australian Sporting and Nilsson carried on
as distributors of the Swedish product very much in the same way
as before.
The suddenness of the termination of its distribution
agreement left Vulkan Australasia in some difficulty for a
period. It had stock on hand of the Swedish product. It
continued to dispose of this stock. As time went on it appears
it arranged for the manufacture in Australia of a similar
product, which it proceeded to sell under the name "Thermoskin".
The Statement of Claim seeking orders restraining Vulkan
Australasia was filed on 6 August 1985. I am not aware when it
was served. Another company was formed called Thermoskin
International Medical Pty. Limited (Thermoskin International) on
9 August 1985 and shortly thereafter it engaged in the
distribution of the Australian made product under the name
Thermoskin. Vulkan Australasia then ceased to operate. As has
already been mentioned the new company was joined as third
respondent during the hearing before me.
It is not possible from the evidence to say precisely
when Vulkan Australasia first began making 1ts own product. Some
time must necessarily have elapsed after termination of the
distribution agreements before it could do so. Then, it ceased
to sell its Thermoskin products after Thermoskin International
-r
- 13 -
was formed. During that limited period it appears that it sold
its Australian product using the name "Thermoskin". Mr. Mark
McLaurin-Smith gave evidence on affidavit that on 13 May 1985
Vulkan commenced supplying the product "Thermoskin" to retailers.
The product had embossed on it in blue-white the word
"Thermoskin" and three overlapping solid triangles or pyramids.
It was in a plain plastic package which had the printed word
"Thermoskin" apparently cut from some brochure and stuck on the
plastic. Inside the package was a leaflet indicating in four
languages what effects the article would produce and directions
for use. A representation in silhouette of articles for use on
different parts of the body surrounding three overlapping solid
triangles or pyramids was also displayed on the leaflet. Finally
it had on the leaflet "Vulkan (Australasia) Medical Pty. Limited
Sydney Australia". "Made in Australia". This was a somewhat
amateurish get-up. I am of opinion that a retailer or purchaser
would not be misled or deceived by it or be likely to be led or
deceived by it into thinking the goods were the Swedish product
of Volcano International. In his affidavit evidence Mr.
McLaurin-Smith swears aiso that on 10 June 1985 the "Thermoskin"
logo was changed and this was incorporated in anew form of
packaging for the product. An example of this is in evidence.
It shows a package consisting of a clear plastic bag with nothing
on it. Inside is the article apparently a knee-guard which has
embossed in white the word ""Thermoskin" and three overlapping
A's. Also included are two leaflets, one containing directions
having in large type Thermoskin "Made in Australia" and in
varengmaee =
Seat heal cutest
mene,
1 oo
-~ 14 -
smaller type "By Thermoskin International Medical Pty. Limited
Sydney"; the second leaflet in black and white having
"Thermoskin" in association with three overlapping A's and an
Australian flag and at the bottom in small type Thermoskin
International Medical Pty. Limited in association with three
overlapping A's. However, Thermoskin International had not at
that date been formed. Retailers and purchasers of these
products would not, in my opinion, be misled or deceived or
likely to be misled or deceived into thinking that these goods
were the Swedish products of Volcano International as contended.
According to Mr. McLaurin-Smith, on 29 July 1985 Vulkan
Australasia commenced supplying retailers with Thermoskin
.
products in another new form of packaging. An example of this is
in evidence. It is the use of this latest form of packaging
which the applicants in these proceedings now seek to restrain.
I will deal with it in more detail later.
It should here be noted that the application which
commenced the present proceedings, supported by affidavit was
filed on 24 July 1985. Later, on 6 August 1985 a statement of
Claim was filed. As has been noted earlier, on 9 August 1985
Vulkan Australasia ceased to sell its products and the third
respondent Thermoskin International commenced to sell them (in
the last form of packaging).
nee
totes
oye
- 15 -
Before dealing with the final packaging used by the
respondents, I return to the period April/July 1985. In this
period the applicants continued to use the exploding Volcano and
the words "Swedish Vulkan" in their brochures and leaflets.
Sometimes they used "Swedish Vulkan Thermoskin". Two examples of
the applicants' newspaper advertising during this period are in
evidence. They are full page advertisements in the Fun Runner
June/July 1985 and The Sun newspaper of 11 July 1985. These
advertisements, which appear to be identical, feature the word
Vulkan - "Vulkan is a unique, specially woven material with small
spiral cells, bonded to anatomically shaped body parts.."
"VULKAN - the greatest advancement in running since the 4 minute
mile". Prominently at the bottom is the exploding volcano logo
and the prirfted words Swedish Vulkan ~- the word Vulkan being in
very large type. Then appears "Trade enquiries to Australian
Sporting Sales Pty. Limited." The word "Thermoskin"" is not used
in either of these advertisements.
Some evidence of confusion during this period April/July
1985 was given by the applicants in the form of affidavit
evidence. Lynda Jane Spry, an employee of Australian Sporting,
gave evidence that on 8 July 1985 she purchased goods of the
respondent Vulkan Australasia at two pharmacies which were
packaged in plastic bags with the printed word "Thermoskin" stuck
on the plastic. She was not misled. The chemists were not
called. James Fraser Douglas, another employee of Australian
Sporting, gave evidence of a telephone call he received on 4 July
ta
my
- 16 -
1985 from someone who asked for the phone number of the Vulkan
factory. Mr. Douglas said it was in Sweden whereupon the caller
said: "Isn't the main office at Cook's Road, Centennial Park"
and hung up. Later Mr. Douglas rang the caller, a Mr. Henry and
said: "Could you give me the address of that factory you are
talking about?" to which Mr Henry replied: "396 Princes
Highway, St. Peters." Thermoskin did not enter into this
conversation. Mr. Douglas was not misled. Mr. Henry was not
called so we do not know what affected him. There is nothing to
prove that any conduct in trade by the respondents misled or
deceived him.
Anthony John Christie, a medical officer of the
Government Irfsurance Office, gave somewhat confusing evidence of
purchasing products in 1984 and in 1985 and of receiving letters
from the respondent Vulkan Australasia. He thought the products
purchased in 1985 were the same as the product purchased in 1984.
In his affidavit he deposed to receiving one letter.
Cross-examined he gave evidence he had received three letters.
Shown one which he said he had received, he agreed that had he
read it through he would have understood there were two products,
but said: "I rarely ever read letters like this right through
word for word. I scan the letter". There is nothing to prove
that any conduct in trade by the respondents misled or deceived
him.
a,
nw
- 17 -
Kim Margaret Kelly is a nurse/receptionist employed by
the Trade Union Medical Centre. She gave affidavit evidence that
she was supplied with some Swedish wrist supports in 1984. In
July 1985 she received a letter from Australian Sporting
referring to the commencement of legal proceedings in relation to
the product. She then had a call from Mr. Andrew McLaurin-Smith
who told her to take no notice of the letter. She continued to
order the product from Mr. Andrew McLaurin-Smith and deposed that
she was unaware she was purchasing anything different from the
products she purchased in 1984. In view of her knowledge of the
'existence of a dispute and the change in get up (assuming she was
not supplied from old stock consisting of the Swedish product) it
is difficult to appreciate her confusion but she was not
cross-examined. We do not have the product she was supplied with
in 1985. I am not satisfied that any conduct of the respondents
misled or deceived her.
Dave William Millanta is an investigator and mercantile
agent. On 27 June 1985 at the request of Mr. Nilsson, he visited
premises situated at 3a/2 Cook Road, Centennial Park in company
with one Peter Glen Bishop. They met Mr. Mark McLaurin-Smith and
Mr. Andrew McLaurin-Smith. A conversation followed between Mr.
Bishop and Mr. Andrew McLaurin-Smith as a consequence of which
Mr. Bishop was given a knee guard for his right arm and told he
need not pay for 1t. This knee guard is in evidence. It is of
the lighter blue material used for the Australian made product.
It has embossed in blue-white letters the word "Thermoskin". Mr.
nee es
prom come
t vO TIT
note
- 18 -
Bishop was not called to give evidence. There is nothing in the
evidence to suggest he was misled or deceived. Clearly the
investigator, Mr. Millanta, was not misled or deceived. There
are other examples of the respondent's product in evidence. The
material appears to be similar to that of the knee guard.
Altogether, I may say it has not been shown that the
respondent Vulkan Australia, during the months of April to July
1985, engaged in conduct in trade or commerce which was
misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
I turn now to the latest packaging in respect of which
the applicants press for an injunction.
It should be said at once that the respondents do not
claim any right to use the exploding volcano or the words
"Swedish Vulkan Thermoskin" or "Vulkan Thermoskin". Their
position is that they are entitled to use the word "Thermoskin"
ina manner which distinguishes their product from the Swedish
product.
The respondents product is similar in appearance. It is
an elastic material of a blue colour with red stitching at the
top and bottom and red, white and blue stitching down the middle.
The Swedish product is of a somewhat darker blue and to my mind
gives the impression of being a superior material. The Swedish
product has embossed in white upon it an exploding volcano and
-~ 19 -
the word "Vulkan". The Australian product has on it in
blue-white capitals the word "Thermoskin". This is sometimes
accompanied by three overlapping triangles with the bottom cut
out to look like A's.
The packages of the respondent are clear plastic and
bear some similarities to the packages of the applicants. They
have a statement of what the product will achieve set forth in
four languages and directions as to use in four languages. The
statement and directions are not identical but have substantial
similarities. The Australian package bears on the front the
word "Thermoskin" in biue with the three overlapping triangles in
blue and red with the bottom cut out to look like A's and an
Australian fiag in colour. The predominant colours are red,
white and blue. It bears at the bottom the words Thermoskin
International Pty. Limited with the three overlapping cut out
triangles. On the back, in addition to the statement of what it
achieves and directions for use, it depicts a young man wearing
specimens of the product on different parts of his body. At the
bottom it has in black prominently printed three overlapping cut
out triangles, the word "Thermoskin" the words "Made in
Australia" in capitals and, in less prominent type the words "by
Thermoskin International Medical Pty. Ltd., Sydney."
The get-up of the Swedish product has already been
described.
- 20 -
The product according to the evidence is not a cheap
one. It is a product to which a purchaser would give some
attention if he were purchasing it.
It is my opinion that a retailer or purchaser would not
be deceived or misled or likely to be deceived or misled into
thinking that he was purchasing the Swedish product if he
purchased the product of the respondent. Although there are
similarities there are distinguishing differences. The
Australian flag and the words "made in Australia" are
sufficiently prominent to come to the attention of any purchaser.
Counsel for the applicants said the claim for passing
off was pressed but it was based on exactly the same factual
materials. He did not address separately upon it. In my opinion
no case of passing off has been made out.
It follows from what I have said on the issue of
liability that the question of any damages suffered by the
applicants does not arise. In the result the application will be
dismissed with costs. The interim injunction which is still
current will be discharged.
The respondents put on a cross-claim alleging that on or
about 18 July 1985 Volcano International, Australian Sporting and
Mr. Nilsson had caused to be distributed to customers of Vulkan
Australasia a notice representing that heat retainers were being
marketed and sold in infringement of Australian Petty Patent
tm agetnypese
we!
- 21 -
No.534719 and that they had commenced proceedings for
infringement of the Petty Patent in respect of these heat
retainers. It was alleged that the statements were false. They
sought relief in the form of an order restraining distribution of
any such notice to the customers of Vulkan Australasia and an
order that the cross-respondents cause to be sent to all
customers of Vulkan Australia who had received any such notice as
that referred to, a further notice stating that it is not true
that heat retainers are being sold in infringement of Australian
Petty Patent No.534719 and not true that the cross respondents or
any of them have commenced proceedings for infringement in
respect of the said heat retainers. This was alleged to be
misleading or deceptive conduct causing damage to the
respondents. The claim was not based on s.121 of the Patents Act
1952.
The evidence was that such a notice had been sent out.
Mr. Nilsson gave evidence that it had been sent to about 35
people who were people who bought the Swedish Vulkan product. He
agreed the intention was to prevent them from buying Mr.
McLaurin-Smith's product. He further agreed he now knew that no
proceedings had been commenced for infringement. He was asked
about infringement but after objection was taken the question was
not pressed. The petty patent relates to a method of stitching
with a particular arrangement of needies. It was at least
asserted that Vulkan Australasia did not use this method but the
evidence does not permit me to rule on the question whether or
——
~ 22 -
not there was an infringement. Certainly no infringement was
proved. I should add that also in evidence is a circular letter
from Mr. Andrew McLaurin-Smith which contains the words:
"You may have received a letter recently
stating that we are in breach of a petty
patent. This is incorrect and no action can
be taken against us to stop the marketing of
the superior product, THERMOSKIN."
In my opinion the cross-claim has been made out in that
the circular sent out to about 35 people was false in stating
that proceedings for infringement had been commenced.
But the question what relief, if any, should be given is
more difficult. On the evidence there is no longer any threat to
send out any further notice. I consider it would be
inappropriate to grant an injunction in the terms asked for. As
to the suggested letter of correction, the letter from Mr. Andrew
McLaurin-Smith will no doubt have gone some way to correct the
wrong impression created. In some circumstances a retraction
many weeks later which has to reflect the original false
assertion may prove counter productive. In any event I would not
be prepared to order a retraction in the terms sought. It may be
that simply to make an order for the respondents' costs of the
cross-action to be paid by the cross-respondents may be
sufficient. However, what I will do in this regard is stand over
the cross-claim toa date to be fixed to enable the cross
claimant to bring in short minutes of such orders as it now seeks
ye
wera ope
. , 4
TTY
tenner
pe
a7
m
Sr ee eee rn eeene crea =
'
"iA
.
ow
Se
- 23-
in the light of these reasons for judgment. Iwill then hear
argument and decide what order, if any, should be made.
Icertiry that this and the faenty 00 (32.
preceding pages are a true copy of the
Reasons for Juéement herein of his Honour
the Chief Judge, Sir Nigel Bowen
CE. GUT OM.
Associate
Dated: QO Sapiember, GBS
i es enter atone cei
wpe ee ee -
eT