Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 644 Citation: Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 644
Parties: LUXOTTICA RETAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v SPECSAVERS PTY LTD
File number(s): NSD 353 of 2010
Judges: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 23 June 2010
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – Misleading and deceptive conduct – Comparative advertising – Breach of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – Remedy – Corrective advertising – Passage of time has diminished misleading and deceptive effect
Legislation: Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) s 14 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 80, 86C
Cases cited: Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 423 cited Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd v Cassidy (2003) 135 FCR 1 applied Telstra Corporation Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd (1996) 36 IPR 515 applied
Date of hearing: 27 May 2010
Date of last submissions: 27 May 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 14
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M R Hall
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Cobden SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 353 of 2010
BETWEEN: LUXOTTICA RETAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: SPECSAVERS PTY LTD
Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate