Energizer Australia Pty Limited v Gillette Australia Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1887

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Energizer Australia Pty Limited v Gillette Australia Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1887 TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct - comparative advertising on television– comparison made between comparer's alkaline product and its rival's lesser diminished performing but cheaper carbon zinc product – one television advertisement misleading and deceptive and enjoined from outset of proceedings – proposed alterations thereto insufficient to obviate permanent injunction – other television advertisement containing questionable features but on balance of discretionary factors not enjoined.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53(a), 53(c)

Arnotts Limited v Trade Practices Commission (1989) 24 FCR 313 followed Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1326 referred to Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd v Smithline Beecham Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 147 referred to Duracell Australia Pt Ltd v Union Carbide Ltd (1988) 14 IPR 293 followed Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) (2000) ATPR 41-751 referred to Hoover (Australia) Pty Ltd v Email Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 369 referred to Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Black & Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd (1990) 14 IPR 270 followed Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Hogan (1989) 23 FCR 553 referred to State Government Insurance Corporation v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1991) 28 FCR 511 referred to State Government Insurance Commission v JM Insurance Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR 40-465 referred to Stuart Alexander & Co (Interstate) Pty Ltd v Blenders Pty Ltd (1981) 37 ALR 161 followed Telstra Corporation Limited v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR 41-541 referred to Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1 referred to Trade Practices Commission v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 326 followed