Chanel Ltd v Raymond John Peter Mellick

--	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

D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN:

and

RAYFIOND JOIIK PETER KELLICK

Respondent

NORTHROP 3.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 8 DECEMBER 1981

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

t h e

a p p l i c a n t s .

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

the

Trade

Prac

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,

person

no t

being

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

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 .

the

m a t e r i a l

b e f o r e

t h e

C o u r t ,

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 ,

use

brochures ,

engsging

t r a d e o r

commerce among

t h e

S t a t e s ,

ancl

a l s o

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

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

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

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

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

h imsel f

o r

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

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

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

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

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

the

r spondent

are

indistinguishable or virtually

indlstinguZshable

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

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

thosc

conducts

consti tut;ng

hrcac! :es

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 .

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 .

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

S n

t he

cause

o r

r c sc lvcd .

seems

t o me,

desp i t e wha t has

been

s z i d ,

a p p r o p r i a t e

that:

c o s t s

s h o u l d

c o s t s i n t he

cause

i n t h i s ma t t e r .

The case of Chanel Ltd v Raymond John Peter Mellick was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry. The plaintiff, Chanel Ltd, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, Raymond John Peter Mellick, alleging that he had been misleadingly advertising and selling perfumes that were replicas or substitutes of Chanel's products, in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The court was required to determine whether the Trade Practices Act applied to the defendant's activities and whether the defendant's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Act.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the plaintiff, as the defendant's activities involved trade or commerce among the States and the use of postal services, and thus fell within the scope of the Trade Practices Act. The court was satisfied that the defendant had been advertising and selling perfumes that were replicas or substitutes of Chanel's products, and that this conduct was misleading or deceptive under the Act. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant from falsely representing that the perfumes he was selling were identical or similar to Chanel's products, or that they were of the same standard, quality, grade, or composition.

The court also considered the issue of costs, and decided that it was appropriate to award costs in the cause, rather than reserving costs. The court noted that the proceedings were interlocutory, and that the usual practice was to award costs in the cause. However, the court also noted that the defendant had argued that costs should be reserved, and that it was therefore appropriate to award costs in the cause as a matter of discretion.

In conclusion, the court granted the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant from misleadingly advertising and selling perfumes that were replicas or substitutes of Chanel's products. The court also awarded costs in the cause, rather than reserving costs. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that businesses do not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct that could harm consumers or other businesses, and the role of the courts in enforcing consumer protection laws.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established