ABC Tissue Products Pty Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd and L & K Rexona Pty Ltd

ABC Tissue Products Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Unilever Australia Ltd and L & K Rexona Pty Ltd (the respondents) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the respondents' use of the trade mark "PUREX" in relation to their range of toilet tissue products. The applicant, the registered owner of the "PUREX" trade mark for similar goods, alleged that the respondents' use of the mark constituted trade mark infringement and misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the court had to consider the likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers given the similarity of the marks and the nature of the goods, and whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

In determining these issues, the court applied the well-established principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The court considered evidence of the respective trade marks, the goods to which they were applied, and the likely market. The assessment of the balance of convenience involved weighing the potential harm to the applicant from continued use of the mark against the potential harm to the respondents from being restrained from trading in their products.

The court ultimately found that the applicant had not established a strong enough prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, and therefore, the application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.