Telstra Corporation Limited & Anor v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd & Ors

The dispute before the Full Federal Court of Australia concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). Telstra Corporation Limited and another party (the appellants) alleged that Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd and other respondents (the appellees) had engaged in conduct that misled consumers into believing that the appellees' directories were affiliated with or endorsed by Telstra, thereby inducing them to enter into advertising contracts with the appellees.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the appellees' conduct in marketing and distributing their telephone directories constituted misleading or deceptive conduct, or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the visual presentation and wording used in the appellees' directories and associated marketing materials created a false impression of an association with Telstra, and if so, whether this impression was likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable member of the target audience.

The Court considered the overall impression conveyed by the appellees' materials, rather than focusing on isolated elements. It applied the established legal principles that conduct will be misleading or deceptive if it has the tendency or capacity to lead a person into error. The Court examined the use of colours, fonts, and terminology that might evoke associations with Telstra's own directories, and assessed whether a reasonable consumer, acting with ordinary care and attention, would likely be misled into believing there was a connection between the two entities. The Court found that the appellees' conduct did not, in its totality, create a misleading impression of affiliation with Telstra.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming the primary judge's finding that the appellees had not engaged in conduct in contravention of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth).