Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1209 File number: NSD 1349 of 2018
Judge: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 10 August 2018
Date of Publication of Reasons: 26 September 2018
Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – application for interlocutory injunctive relief – where applicant asserts that respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by advertising representations – where respondent launched advertising campaign allegedly representing that respondent's product provides up to four hours of relief, lasts longer than applicant's product, that the only material difference between products was longer lasting relief, and underlying scientific basis representations – where applicant seeks, inter alia, orders restraining further display or making of asserted representations – balance of convenience considerations – held: applicant sufficiently made out case for interlocutory injunctive relief to a prima facie standard, and with balance of convenience taken into account
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (contained in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) s 4(1)
Cases cited: Abundant Earth Pty Ltd v R & C Products Pty Ltd (1984) 59 ALR 211 Astrazeneca Pty Limited v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCAFC 22; (2006) ATPR 42-106 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634; 317 ALR 73 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54; 250 CLR 640 Benlist Pty Ltd v Olivetti Australia Pty Ltd (1990) ATPR 41-043; (1990) ASC 55-997 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60; 218 CLR 592 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; 238 CLR 304 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International [2000] HCA 12; 202 CLR 45 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805 at 809; [1951] 1 All ER 631 George Western Foods Ltd v Goodman Fielder Ltd [2000] FCA 1632; 49 IPR 553 Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energiser Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 223; 193 ALR 629 Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1647 Hutchence v South Seas Bubble Co Pty Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 330 Janssen Pharmaceutical Pty Limited v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1985) 6 IPR 227 Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd (No.2) [2006] FCA 1646; 70 IPR 574 National Exchange Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] FCAFC 90; 49 ACSR 369 Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 753 Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 227; 113 IPR 11 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1992] FCA 630; 38 FCR 1
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