Comparative advertising – the risks

Comparative advertising is a form of advertising where a supplier compares its product favourably against the product of a competitor.  It is not that common as it can be risky because: The comparison has to be absolutely accurate – many examples of comparative advertising that come to Court fail to do this; and Your competitor […]

$3 million penalty for Google ad campaign

In 2021 the Federal Court found that Employsure, in its Google ads, misrepresented that it had associations with various Government agencies.  I reported on this case here. The Trial Judge imposed a fine of $1 million for these breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) appealed this penalty […]

The problem for users of Google’s dynamic keyword insertion

Is it a good idea to use someone else’s name as a Google keyword and Google headline? The Full Court of the Federal Court has recently said “no”.  Google keywords on a website are not visible but they are used to attract consumers to the site when that keyword is typed into the Google search […]

Fearless Girl meets Australian Intellectual Property Law

Fearless Girl is the name of a bronze statue of a strong and confident girl created by Kristen Visbal and installed in New York City in 2017.  The statue was funded by financial company State Street US and its unveiling was timed to coincide with a marketing campaign by State Street US that sought to […]

NSW disclosure requirements apply to suppliers outside NSW

Suppliers outside New South Wales New South Wales has introduced a new law that requires suppliers, before they supply goods or services, to take reasonable steps to ensure that the consumer is aware of the substance and effect of any term or condition relating to the supply that may substantially prejudice the interests of the […]

Important changes to labelling of hand sanitiser

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic many companies have been making hand sanitiser. But issues have arisen about their effectiveness, alcohol content and the risk of ingestion.  New rules commenced on 25 November 2020 to address these issues.  The rules apply to hand sanitiser that is regulated under cosmetics regulations.  From 25 May 2021 […]

High penalties for misrepresentations

Penalties for making false or misleading statements about goods and services can be substantial.  Maximum penalties have dramatically increased from $1.1 million for companies to a maximum of the greater of: $10 million; or 3 times the value of the benefit received by the company from the breach; or if the value of the benefit […]

Appeal court flushes away ACCC claims on flushable wipes

The Full Court of the Federal Court has rejected the appeal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) in its unsuccessful case against Kimberly-Clark (“K C”), where the ACCC claimed that K-C had made misrepresentations about its “flushable” wipes. FactsK-C made wipes (moist towelettes) from fibres that were hydroentangled, or blasted by fine jets […]

The Curious Case of Pinnacle and the Bikinis – Part 2

Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited [2019] FCA 1662 (10 October 2019) is a curious case in more ways than one. I have previously blogged about the relevance of the case to trade marks law – here.  The case is also a cautionary tale about the risks of litigation. FactsThe applicant, Pinnacle, sent Triangl […]

The Curious Case of Pinnacle and the Bikinis

FactsThe case of Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited [2019] FCA 1662 (10 October 2019) considered whether Pinnacle’s trade mark DELPHINE, which was registered in class 25 for clothing, headwear and swimwear, was infringed by use of the word DELPHINE as a style of one of Triangl’s bikinis.  Triangl sold a range of approximately […]