Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited v Energizer Pty Limited [2011] FCA 1347 Citation: Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited v Energizer Pty Limited [2011] FCA 1347
Parties: PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 008 396 245 v ENERGIZER AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 003 539 026
File number: NSD 121 of 2011
Judge: BENNETT J
Date of judgment: 29 November 2011
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – respondent admits making representation in promotional materials that respondent's products have a hydrating effect on the skin of the user during shaving process – whether representation contravenes ss 18(1) and 29(1)(g) of Australian Consumer Law – whether hydrating effect is greater than de minimis TRADE PRACTICES – whether respondent made representation in promotional materials that respondent's products have a hydrating effect on the skin of the user after shaving process – relevance of nature of product – relevance of absence of evidence of consumer complaint or consumer misunderstanding TRADE PRACTICES – whether respondent made representation in promotional materials that respondent's products provide best shave for user in comparison to other products – whether respondent's claims are mere puffery
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 4, 18(1), 29(1)(g)
Cases cited: ACCC v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682 cited ACCC v Henry Kaye and National Investment Institute Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1363 cited Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] 25 ALR 91 cited Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited (1991) 27 FCR 149 cited Cadbury Schweppes v Darrell Lea (No 4) (2006) 229 ALR 136 cited Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 applied Jainran Pty Ltd v Boyana [2008] NSWSC 468 applied Kulikovsky v Police [2010] SASC 58 cited Lymquartz v 2 Elizabeth Bay Road [2007] NSWSC 457 cited Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 followed Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 cited Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979) 27 ALR 367 cited
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