Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Powell

The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) sued Ms Powell, a wine educator and commentator, for allegedly misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and for contravening the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 (Cth). The CIVC alleged that Ms Powell promoted sparkling wines as Champagne wines and falsely represented an affiliation with the Champagne sector, which is a French controlled appellation of origin. The court had to decide if Ms Powell's conduct misled consumers about the difference between Champagne wines and other sparkling wines and if she falsely represented an affiliation with the Champagne sector. The court found that Ms Powell did contravene the ACL by misleading or deceiving consumers through her social media promotions of sparkling wines, but the CIVC did not establish any contraventions under the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act. Consequently, the court did not grant the CIVC's request for injunctive relief or the cancellation of Ms Powell's business registrations and domain names.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented regarding Ms Powell's use of her name and persona "Champagne Jayne" and her promotion of both Champagne and sparkling wines. The court found that Ms Powell's conduct likely misled consumers by not clearly distinguishing between Champagne wines and other sparkling wines, and by implying an affiliation with the Champagne sector. However, the CIVC did not establish that Ms Powell sold or advertised the sparkling wines for sale, which was necessary for a contravention under the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act. Therefore, the court did not grant the CIVC's request for injunctive relief or the cancellation of Ms Powell's business registrations and domain names. The court reserved costs and directed the parties to propose minutes of orders and written submissions on the appropriate form of declarations and injunctions to address the contraventions found.

In conclusion, the court found that Ms Powell contravened the ACL by misleading or deceiving consumers about the difference between Champagne wines and other sparkling wines and by falsely representing an affiliation with the Champagne sector through her use of social media. However, the CIVC did not establish any contraventions under the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act. The court did not grant the CIVC's request for injunctive relief or the cancellation of Ms Powell's business registrations and domain names but reserved costs and directed the parties to propose minutes of orders and written submissions on the appropriate form of declarations and injunctions to address the contraventions found.