Johnson & Johnson & Johnson

In the matter of *Johnson & Johnson & Johnson*, the applicant, Johnson & Johnson, sought to restrain the respondent, also named Johnson & Johnson, from using its corporate name and trading as "Johnson & Johnson" in relation to the provision of certain services. The dispute concerned alleged contraventions of the *Australian Consumer Law* and the tort of passing off. The proceedings were heard by Warnick J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent's use of the name "Johnson & Johnson" constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the *Australian Consumer Law*, and whether it amounted to passing off at common law. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the respondent's conduct was likely to deceive or confuse consumers into believing that its services were associated with, or endorsed by, the applicant, thereby causing damage to the applicant's goodwill and reputation.

Warnick J found that the applicant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in the name "Johnson & Johnson" in relation to its established business activities. The Court reasoned that the respondent's adoption of the identical name for a similar, albeit not identical, range of services created a significant likelihood of deception and confusion among the relevant class of consumers. Applying the principles of the *Australian Consumer Law* and the tort of passing off, the Court concluded that the respondent's conduct was likely to mislead consumers into believing there was a commercial connection between the two entities, which would inevitably cause damage to the applicant's reputation and business.

Consequently, Warnick J made orders restraining the respondent from using the name "Johnson & Johnson" in connection with its business and from engaging in conduct likely to deceive or confuse consumers into believing its services are associated with the applicant.