iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd

In iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a dispute over the advertising of sore throat lozenges. The applicant, iNova Pharmaceuticals, alleged that the respondent, Reckitt Benckiser, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct through its advertising campaign, which claimed that their product provided up to four hours of relief, lasted longer than iNova’s product, and that the only material difference between the products was the duration of relief. iNova sought interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain Reckitt Benckiser from making further advertising representations. The court was required to determine whether iNova had sufficiently established a case for interlocutory injunctive relief to a prima facie standard and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting such relief.

The court considered various factors, including the nature of the products, the market dynamics, and the influence of advertising on consumer behaviour. The court concluded that iNova had demonstrated a sufficient case for interlocutory injunctive relief, as the advertising claims were potentially misleading and could cause harm to iNova’s reputation and market position. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief, as the potential harm to iNova outweighed any inconvenience to Reckitt Benckiser. The court made the interlocutory orders on 10 August 2018, pending the final determination of the proceeding. The costs of the interlocutory application were reserved until the final determination of iNova’s originating application and statement of claim.