Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited
Case
•
[2015] FCA 753
•23 July 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 753
[2015] FCA 753
23 July 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited sought an interim injunction to prevent Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited from broadcasting a television advertisement promoting its dishwashing products. The applicant argued that the advertisement was misleading or deceptive in breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The primary dispute was whether the advertisement implied that Finish Max-in-1 and Finish All-in-1 products had identical performance, which the applicant denied. The court was tasked with determining whether the advertisement conveyed misleading representations and whether an interim injunction was warranted.
The court first assessed whether the advertisement made misleading claims about the Finish products' performance. It considered the applicant's argument that Finish Max-in-1 contained "Glass Protection" ingredients not present in Finish All-in-1. The court concluded that if reasonable viewers interpreted the advertisement to refer to Finish Max-in-1, the respondent could rely on testing of Finish All-in-1 to support its claims. The court found that the applicant had made out a strong prima facie case for relief concerning certain representations in the advertisement, particularly those suggesting the products had identical performance. The court then evaluated the balance of convenience, finding that preventing misleading advertising to protect consumers and the applicant's brand outweighed the respondent's concerns about the impact on its promotional campaigns and financial losses.
Based on the evidence, the court granted the interim injunction, restraining the respondent from broadcasting the advertisement. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application and scheduled a directions hearing for further proceedings. The injunction aimed to protect consumers from being misled and to safeguard the applicant's brand reputation until the final determination of the case.
The court first assessed whether the advertisement made misleading claims about the Finish products' performance. It considered the applicant's argument that Finish Max-in-1 contained "Glass Protection" ingredients not present in Finish All-in-1. The court concluded that if reasonable viewers interpreted the advertisement to refer to Finish Max-in-1, the respondent could rely on testing of Finish All-in-1 to support its claims. The court found that the applicant had made out a strong prima facie case for relief concerning certain representations in the advertisement, particularly those suggesting the products had identical performance. The court then evaluated the balance of convenience, finding that preventing misleading advertising to protect consumers and the applicant's brand outweighed the respondent's concerns about the impact on its promotional campaigns and financial losses.
Based on the evidence, the court granted the interim injunction, restraining the respondent from broadcasting the advertisement. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application and scheduled a directions hearing for further proceedings. The injunction aimed to protect consumers from being misled and to safeguard the applicant's brand reputation until the final determination of the case.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consumer Law
-
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
-
False or Misleading Representations
-
Interim Injunction
-
Balancing Convenience and Justice
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 753
Most Recent Citation
Xu v Salter Brothers Asset Management Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 89
Cases Citing This Decision
456
Cases Cited
21
Statutory Material Cited
1
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd
[1996] FCA 1035
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Optus Communications Pty Ltd
[1996] FCA 1035
Cited Sections