Meredith Corporation v Better Pets and Gardens Pty Ltd

Meredith Corporation Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Better Pets and Gardens Pty Ltd (the respondent) to restrain the respondent from continuing to use the applicant's registered trade mark "Meredith" in relation to pet food products. The applicant alleged that the respondent's use of the trade mark constituted trade mark infringement and misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Australian Consumer Law*. The application was heard by Justice Alison Windsor in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had established a strong prima facie case of trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the respondent's use of the "Meredith" mark on its pet food products was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the origin or affiliation of those products with the applicant, and whether such use was likely to deceive or mislead consumers into believing that the respondent's products were endorsed by, or connected to, the applicant.

Justice Windsor considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the distinctiveness of the "Meredith" trade mark, the similarity between the respective goods, and the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Court applied the principles established in *SPP Enterprises Ltd v Coca-Cola Co* and *Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd* concerning trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct, focusing on the overall impression created by the marks and the goods in the marketplace. The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated a strong prima facie case of both trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of the proceedings.

The Court ordered that the respondent be restrained from using the "Meredith" trade mark in relation to pet food products, or any other goods or services likely to cause confusion with the applicant's registered trade mark, until further order. The costs of the application were reserved.