Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1094 File number: NSD 823 of 2021
Judgment of: HALLEY J
Date of judgment: 3 September 2021
Date of publication of reasons: 10 September 2021
Catchwords: TRADE MARKS – application for interim injunction restraining alleged trade mark infringement – whether applicants have established a prima facie case – use as a trade mark – deceptive similarity – cross-claim alleging non-use – balance of convenience – whether interlocutory relief decisive in resolution of dispute – justification for preservation of the status quo – reputation and goodwill of established incumbent compared to new entrant – assessment and recovery of damages – relevance of impact on competition – interim injunction granted
Legislation: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 7, 10, 17, 20, 120
Cases cited: Anheuser-Busch, Inc v Budĕjovický Budvar, Národní Podnik (2002) 56 IPR 182; [2002] FCA 390 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46 Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F. S. Walton and Company Limited (1937) 58 CLR 641; [1937] HCA 51 Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618; [1968] HCA 1 Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (2004) 64 IPR 45; [2004] FCA 1335 Beecham Group Plc v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (2005) 66 IPR 254; [2005] FCA 838 Bullock v The Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464; [1985] FCA 48 Christodoulou v Disney Enterprises Inc (2005) 156 FCR 344; [2005] FCA 1401 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited (2013) 305 ALR 363; [2013] FCAFC 102 Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Limited v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited (1991) 30 FCR 326; [1991] FCA 402 Levi Strauss & Co v Kimbyr Investments Ltd (1993) 28 IPR 249; [1994] NZLR 332 Martin & Pleasance Pty Ltd v A Nelson & Co Ltd [2021] FCAFC 80 Midas Australia Pty Ltd v Ravecroft Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 771 Mishawaka Rubber & Woollen Manufacturing Co v S S Kresge Co (1942) 316 US 203 Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited (No 2) (2010) 275 ALR 526; [2010] FCA 1380 Paramount Pictures Corporation v Hasluck (2006) 70 IPR 293; [2006] FCA 1431 Parfums Christian Dior (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dimmey's Stores Pty Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 349; [1997] FCA 1232 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 Plimpton v Spiller [1876] 4 Ch D 286 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365; [1999] FCA 1020 Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238; [2011] FCAFC 156 The Shell Company of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) 109 CLR 407; [1963] HCA 66 Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 311 ALR 632; [2014] FCAFC 59
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