Dow Jones & Company Inc v Wealth Street Pty Ltd & Michael Safar

Dow Jones & Company Inc (Dow Jones) commenced proceedings against Wealth Street Pty Ltd and Michael Safar (the defendants) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained within Schedule 2 of the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth). Dow Jones alleged that the defendants had engaged in conduct that was likely to mislead or deceive the public into believing that Wealth Street was affiliated with or endorsed by Dow Jones, thereby damaging Dow Jones' reputation and goodwill.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the defendants' conduct, specifically the use of the name "Wealth Street" and associated branding, was likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing there was a connection between Wealth Street and Dow Jones. This involved an assessment of the overall impression created by the defendants' representations and whether that impression was likely to cause confusion or mistake on the part of the relevant public. The Court was required to consider the potential for consumers to infer an association or endorsement that did not exist.

In determining the issue, the Court applied the established principles for assessing misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL. It considered the likely effect of the representations on a significant number of ordinary members of the public, taking into account their level of knowledge and experience. The Court analysed the similarities in the names and the nature of the businesses, as well as the context in which the representations were made. The Court found that the defendants' conduct was indeed likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing that Wealth Street was affiliated with or endorsed by Dow Jones, thereby contravening section 18 of the ACL.

The Court ordered that the defendants were permanently restrained from using the name "Wealth Street" in connection with financial services or any business that could be confused with Dow Jones. The defendants were also ordered to pay Dow Jones' costs of the proceeding.