Bentley Fragrances Pty Ltd & Anor v Juvena Cosmetics Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 646

RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTTON

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No.G598 of 1986 )

GENERAL DIVISTON )

BETWEEN : BENTLEY FRAGRANCES PTY. LIMITED

Applicant AND: DEMTEL INTERNATIONAL FTY. LIMITED Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.G612 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN:

JUVENA COSMETICS PTY. LIMITED

Applicant AND:

DEMTEL INTERNATIONAL FTY. LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: FOX J.

DATE: 18 DECEMBER 1986

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

EOX J.

These are two applications for interlocutory injunctions which are being heard together by consent on the basis that the evidence in one is to be evidence in the other. They both relate to the same subject matter, which is a threatened repeat of a television advertisement by the respondent for perfumes which it sells direct to the public under the name "Paul Gireau of

Balmain".

The problem which arises is that the advertisement adopted by the respondent uses products of the applicants as aids fo the sale of its own products. One of the applicants is concerned with a perfume called "Opium", the other with a perfume called "Arpege", both well-known vroeducts on the market and

available widely bv retail.

There can be some debate as to what precisely the respondent is representing by the advertisement, but it seems to me to be plain enough that it is claiming that it can provide to purchasers products which are virtually indistinqguishable in fragrance from the "Opium" and "Arpeqe" products respectively. Tt associates those claims with the fact that its products sell

very much more cheaply than do the products I have mentioned. I

eee ee ee ee

-

3. should say. for completeness, that it not only relates its advertisement tc "Opium" and "Arpege" perfumes but also, and in

the same way, to "Miss Dior", "Chanel No. 5" and "Joy" perfumes.