Unilever Australia Ltd v Beiersdorf Australia Ltd

Unilever Australia Limited brought an action against Beiersdorf Australia Limited, seeking declarations and injunctive relief against misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of antiperspirant deodorants. The court was required to determine whether Beiersdorf made certain representations to consumers about the antiperspirant efficacy of its products, and if so, whether those representations were false or misleading.

The court found that Beiersdorf did not expressly represent to consumers that its antiperspirant deodorants had “similar antiperspirant efficacy” to Unilever’s products, or that Beiersdorf’s products had “greater antiperspirant efficacy” than all other “non-clinical” antiperspirant deodorants available from supermarkets in Australia. Even if such representations had been implied or inferred from Beiersdorf’s conduct in marketing, distributing and selling its products, the court found that these representations were not made. The court also found that Beiersdorf did not have reasonable grounds for making representations as to future matters. The court was also required to determine whether laboratory test results could prove that Unilever’s and Beiersdorf’s products were “similar” or that Beiersdorf’s products were “superior” to all other “non-clinical” antiperspirant deodorants available from supermarkets in Australia. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the falsity of some of the representations.

The court dismissed Unilever’s application for declarations and injunctive relief. The court ordered that Unilever pay Beiersdorf’s costs and that the time within which Unilever must file and serve any notice of appeal was to commence to run from 4 February 2019.