The Real Thing Food Supplements (Pty) Ltd v Media Tag Pty Ltd, Robyn Lasarow and Graham Meyerowitz

The dispute before the Supreme Court of New South Wales involved The Real Thing Food Supplements (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) and Media Tag Pty Ltd, Robyn Lasarow, and Graham Meyerowitz (the respondents). The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from publishing certain advertisements and from continuing to operate a website that allegedly contained misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents' advertisements and website constituted misleading or deceptive conduct, or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, in relation to the applicant's food supplement products. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondents' claims about their own products, and their comparative statements about the applicant's products, were substantiated and not likely to mislead consumers about the efficacy and nature of the respective supplements. The court was also required to determine if the applicant had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court analysed the content of the advertisements and website, comparing the claims made by the respondents about their products with the scientific evidence or lack thereof. The court found that certain statements made by the respondents regarding the applicant's products were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead consumers, particularly in relation to the comparative benefits and ingredients. The court also considered the potential damage to the applicant's reputation and goodwill if the conduct continued.

The court ultimately granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondents from publishing the offending advertisements and from continuing to operate the website in its current form pending the final determination of the proceedings. The court ordered that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application.