Chanel Ltd v Raymond John Peter Mellick

[1981] FCA 259

--	IN THE FEGERAL, COURT or AUSTRALIA	_I_	)
)

V I C T O R I A	DISTRICT	R E G I S T R Y	)	V.G.	No.	1 9 9 O L 1931.
)

- G E N E R A L I_ D I V I S I O N 1

BETWEEN:

and

RAYFIOND JOIIK PETER KELLICK Respondent

.- * NORTHROP 3. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 8 DECEMBER 1981

I propose t o make t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s a s

s o u g h t by t h e a p p l i c a n t s . I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t i n r e g a r d t o

t h e p r o v i s i o n s of the Trade Prac t ices Act -- 1 9 7 4 and t h e f a c t s

e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s c a s e , t h e C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make

t h e o r d e r s a g a i n s t Raymond John Petcr Mcll ick, a person no t

being a corpora t ion , based upon t r a d e o r commerce among t h e

S t a t e s and a l s o t h e use o f p o s t a l s e r v i c e s , and r e f e r r i r g in

p a r t i c u l a r t o s.6(1) and ( 2 ) ( a ) ( i i ) and (iii) of t he A c t .

On the m a t e r i a l b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , I am s a t i s f i e r j in

t h e r e q u i s i t e s e n s e t h a t t h e respondent , Mell ick, has been

adve r t i s ing and , by use of brochures , engsging ;n t r a d e o r

commerce among t h e S t a t e s , ancl a l s o by p o s t , i n r c l a t l o n L o

- 2 -

perfumes i n such a way as t o be i n breach of ss.52, 5 3 A and

55 of the - Trade P rac t i ces -- A c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e g a r d t o t h e

reference t o Chanel 5 , Chanel 1 9 , and any 6 the r perfume of

t h e a p p l i c a n t , and t h a t h e use o f t he xp res s ions i n t h c

advs r t i s emen t	and	the	pamphle ts	o r	brochures	i s in	bleach	of
t h o s e .

The rep l ica o f those per fumes and t h e s u b s t i c u t i o n

i n f ragrance for those per fumes , cons t i tu te conduct cont ra ry

t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s e c t i o n s o f t h e Act t o wbich I have

r e f e r r e d .

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t o r d e r s t h a t u n t l : t h e

2

1:eaLing and de termina t ion of t h l s app l i ca t ion the r e sponden t ,

Raymond John Peter Mellick, whether by h imsel f o r by h i s

s e r v a n t o r a g e n t o r o t h e r w i s e , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , b e

r e s t r a i n e d -

( a ) from f a l s e l y r e p r e s e n t i n g , w h e t h e r e x p r e s s l y or by

i m p l i c a t i o n , t h a t t h e p e r f u m e s o f f e x r e d f o r s a l e by

t h e r e s p o n d e n t a r e i d e n t i c a l t o o r v i r t u s l l y

i d e n t i c a l	t o	t h e	a p p l i c a n t ' s	p e r f u m e s	o r	a n y	o f
them:

( b ) f r o m f a l s e l y r e p r e s e n t i n g , w h e t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r by

I m p l i c a t i o n , t h a t h e p e r f u m e s o f f e r e d f o r s a l e by

t h e r e s p o n d e n t a r e s u b s t j t u t e s o r v i r t u a l

- 3 -

substitutes in fragrance	for	thc	applicant's
perfumcs or any of them:

(c) from falsely representing, whether expressly or by

implication, that the perfumes or any of them offered for sale by the respondents arc a replica or a virtual replica of the applicant's perfumes oi any of them:

( d )	from falsely representing, whether expressly or by implication, that the perfumes or any of them
offered for sale by the r spondent are
indistinguishable or virtually indlstinguZshable

c

from the applicant's perfumes or any of them;

(e)	from f a l s e l y representing, whether expressly or by implication, that the perfumes or any of them
offered € o r sale by the respondent are the

applicant's perfumes or any of them;

(f)	from falsely representing, whether expressly or by implication, that the perfumes or any of thev offered for sale by tht respondent are of the same
or virtually the same standard, quality, grade

and/or composition as the applicant's perfumes or

any of them:

- 4 -

( 9 ) from c n q a ~ i n g i n conduc t ha t is l iL~ . )>1e ECI m i s l ead

t h e p u b l i c a s t o t h e n a t u r e , t h e m a n u C a c t u r i n g

process o r t h e c h a i a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e pc-:-Lurrcs o r

any o f them o f f e r e d f o r s a l e by t h e respondcnLs,

and each of thosc conducts consti tut;ng hrcac! :es of

t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s Act 1 9 7 4 o r b e i n g c o n t r a t y t o

-_I_

t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t ?,ct .

I do n o t propose t o make any o rde r f o r c o s t s a p a r t

from r e s e r v i n g t h e c o s t s . I have heard what Mr. Robson h a s

said, t h e s e a r e i n t e r l o c u t o r y p r o c e e d i n g s and the normal

.-e

procedure is t h a t c o s t s be c o s t s S n t he cause o r r c sc lvcd .

It seems t o me, desp i t e wha t has been s z i d , it is a p p r o p r i a t e

that: c o s t s s h o u l d be c o s t s i n t he cause i n t h i s ma t t e r .

I

. ,