Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vendor Advocacy Australia Pty Ltd v Seitanidis [2013] FCA 971 Citation: Vendor Advocacy Australia Pty Ltd v Seitanidis [2013] FCA 971
Parties: VENDOR ADVOCACY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v PETER SEITANIDIS
File number(s): VID 990 of 2011
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 27 September 2013
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – use of similar domain and trading names by rival businesses – whether secondary meaning in its name was established by the applicant – causation and the extent of differentiation from a descriptive name required to avoid finding of likely deception – whether sufficient nexus between conduct of respondent and any likely misconception or deception – whether a not insubstantial number of consumers were likely to have been misled or deceived – whether any likely deception was transitory – relevance of any intent of the respondent to take advantage of applicant's reputation.
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Hutchinson Telecommunications (Aust) Ltd (1009) 17 IPR 615 Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F. S. Walton and Company Limited (1937) 58 CLR 641 Betta Foods Australia Pty Ltd v Betta Fruit Bars Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 347 British Telecommunications Plc v One In a Million Ltd (1999) 1 WLR 903 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (2007) 159 FCR 397 Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 Commercial Dynamics Pty Ltd v M Hawke Nominees Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-503 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302 Connect.Com.Au Pty Ltd v GoConnect Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 178 ALR 348; (2000) 50 IPR 535; [2000] FCA 1148 De Cordova v Vick (1951) 1B IPR 496 Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lanes Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation and Another (1989) 16 IPR 431 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 294 ALR 404 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 294 ALR 404; [2013] HCA 1 Guide Dog Owners' & Friend's Association v Guide Dog Association of NSW & ACT (1998) 43 IPR 531 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 Insurance News Pty Ltd v JEM Nominees Pty Ltd t/a Insurance News Australia (2008) 80 IPR 239; [2008] FCA 1966 Knight v Beyond Property Pty Ltd (2007) 242 ALR 586 Morgan & Banks Pty Ltd v Select Personnel Pty Ltd (1991) 20 IPR 289 Mortgage House of Australia Pty Ltd v Mortgage House International Pty Ltd (2005) 63 IPR 600; [2004] FCA 1279 Nutrientwater Pty Ltd v Baco Pty Ltd (2010) 84 IPR 452; [2010] FCA 2 Peter Bodum A/S v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 005 059 307) (2011) 280 ALR 639; [2011] FCAFC 98 REA Group Ltd v Real Estate 1 Ltd [2013] FCA 559 Solahart Industries Pty Ltd v Solar Shop Pty Ltd (2011) 281 ALR 544 Sports Warehouse v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 519 Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Ltd v Coles Myer Ltd (1989) 89 ALR 48 The Architects (Australia) Pty Ltd v Witty Consultants Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 139 Windsor Smith Pty Ltd v Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 286
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