Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Olympic Committee, Inc. v Telstra Corporation Limited [2016] FCA 857 File number: NSD 1158 of 2016
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 29 July 2016
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – misleading and deceptive conduct – where print, electronic and television advertisements and promotional material used to promote a mobile phone application prior to the 2016 Rio Olympic Games – where advertisements used to promote partnership with Olympic sponsor – where advertiser is not an Olympic sponsor – whether advertisements and promotional material would mislead or deceive consumers into believing a sponsorship or sponsorship-like relationship existed STATUTES – Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth), s 36 – whether conduct breached s 36 – use of protected Olympic properties in advertisements and promotional material – whether use of Olympic properties would indicate the existence of sponsorship or sponsorship-like relationship to a "reasonable" person
Legislation: Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Pt IVB, Sch 2, ss 18, 29(1)(g), 29(1)(h) Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth), ss 23, 28, 30(2), 36, 38
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation [2007] FCA 1904 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2004) 218 CLR 592 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82 Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 54 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1380 Pacific Dunlop Limited v Hogan (1989) 23 FCR 553 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 Seven Network Ltd v News Interactive Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1047 Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 170 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v The South Australian Brewery Co Limited (1996) 66 FCR 451 Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661
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