Wander Ltd v Barlow Group Ltd

[1982] FCA 315

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTR4LIA )

NE!/ SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ] No. G 137 of 1982

1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

BETWEEM

WmJDER LIMITED

Applicant

- AND

BARLOW GROUP LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM:  SHEPPARD J . 23 h g u s t , 1982

FLEASOMS FOR JUDC-MENT

Th i s i s a n a p p l l c a t l o n f o r m t e r l o c u t o r y re l ief I n

which t h e a p p l l c a n t s e e k s t o r e s t r a in the r e sponden t f rom

marketing a p r e p a r a t l o n known as Medlfast . The causes

o f a c t i o n upon which t h e a p p l l c a n t r e l i e s are breaches o r

z

t h rea t ened b reaches o f 5 .52 o f t he Trade P rac t l ces Act 1974

and p a s s i n g o f f .

Wn-121

1s a company i n c o r p o r a t e d i n Switzerland.

- T

I t 1s a member of a group of cornpanles known as t h e Sandoz

Group which manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products

throughout xhe world. It h a s f o r some t m e marketed i n .

L

Western

Europe , bu t no t l nc lud ing t i e Un i t ed Klngdorn, a

product

-

-7--

known Modifast as whlch t c l a l m s t o be e f f e c t l v e

..

i n the t r ea tmen t o f obes l ty . It 1s s o l d i n a box con-

-

t a m i n g 15 packages, each	m	t u r n c o n t a m i n g	a	powder
--.

which 1s Intended, vhen mlxed wi th water, t o r e p l a c e meals.

I n s t e a d o f p a r t a k i n g o f h l s o r d m a r y m e a l s , t h e p a t l e n t

c o n s m e . s - s t m times t h e c o n t e n t s of one of the packages.

T h u s , t h e - e e h ~ r uf xreatment cont inues over f lve days.

- The advantage of the a p p l l c a n t ' s p r o d u c t IS sa=to

b e t h a t It p r o v l d e s s u f f l c i e n t n u t r i m e n t f o r t h e d a l l y

requlrements of the body comblned wl th a very low c a l o r i e

In t ake . I t is recommended that the product only be taken

-

upon t h e p r e s c r i p t l o n or recommendation of a medlcal

-

p r a c t i t i o n e r , a p p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e the-q&k&- recognises

thZt a l e t s of t h i s k m d may be harmful to some members o f

-

t h e	communitv.	.	.
/	W

Recent ly the & k L liiant has t aken s t eps to beg ln rnarker-

-

m g	i ts	p r o d u c t	i n k u s r r a l i a , b u t	t h e s e s t e p s	are	s t l l l	i n
t h e l r	p r e l l m l n a r y	s t a g e s .	I t	v a s	n e c e s s a r y	f o r	t%

~~

app l l can t t o ob ta in an impor t pe rml t . T h l s has been granted

bu t subJec t t o a c o n d i t l o n t o r h e d e t a l l of whlch I do not

refer because i t 1s p a r t of t h e c o n f l d e n t l a l e v l d e n c e I n

the case . The perml t was Issued on 4 August l as t . Before

W -

p u t t i n g i t s product on t h e m a r k e t h e r e , t h e a p p Z x 6 t I n r e n d s

t o c o n d u c t c l l n l c a l tests. These have not yet comwenced and

~ .

will not be complete before t h e end o f February next year .

-.

The product was d l s p l a y e d a t a medical congress

on o b e s i t y h e l d i n Rome I n 1980. I n t e r e s t was shown

by a number of doc tors f rom var ious par t s of the wor ld ,

some of whom came f rom Aus t r a l i a . A fo l low-up c l r cu la r

l e t t e r was w r l r t e n t o t h o s e d o c t o r s .

There i s a medlcal p u b l i c a t l o n known a s The I n t e r -

national Journa l o f Obes l ty . I t has some c i r c u l a t l o n

i n A u s t r a l i a . An i s s u e of the J o u r n a l C l r c u l a t e d e a r l i e r

t h i s y e a r c o n t a i n e d a prominent adver t i sement for the

app l i can t ' s p roduc t . Towards t h e end of l a s t year and

ear l ler t h i s y e a r t h e a p p l i c a n t c o n s u l t e d a number o f

d o c t o r s a n d d i e t i c i a n s c o n c e r n l n g t h e m t r o d u c t l o n o f Its

p r o d u c t i n t o A u s t r a l i a . A number o f p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s

have been made and c e r t a i n l e t te rs have been wrl t ten.

Evldence of these contac ts was g lven in the fo rm o f ca rds

r eco rd ing conve r sa t lons and l e t t e r s . Bo th were conf lden t l a l

exh lb i t s and I do n o t r e f e r t o t h e d e t a i l o f them. I t must

be s a l d , however, t h a t t h e s e c o n t a c t s h a v e n o t b e e n numerous

and t h a t the l e t te rs a r e o f t h e c i r c u l a r t y p e . T h e r e has

been no wri t ten response to them, a t l e a s t so f a r as the

ev ldence d i sc loses .

On f o r r e g l s t r a t l o n o f 22 January, 1981, the a p p l i c a n t made a p p l i c a t i o n

the trademark 'Wodlfast" as a trademark

I n P a r t A o f t h e regis ter I n r e s p e c t of d i e t e t i c f o o d s f o r

..

medlca l use , in fan ts and inva l ids ' foods , food supple-

ments conta ln lng pro te ln , v i tamlns and mlnera ls and

s l immlng diets . On o r about 13 August, 1982, the

Assis tanr ; Regis t rar of Trade Marks n o t l f i e d t h e a p p l i c a n t

t ha t t he app l i ca t ion had been accep ted , bu t	It	h a s n o t	as
ye t been adver t l sed .

P

The2e-t i s a was incorpora t ed

I n the Unl ted Klngdom on or about 20 January, 1982. On o r

about 9 March, 1982, It was r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e k u s t r a l l a ;

C a p l t a l T e r r l t o r y a s a f o r e i g n company. I n o r abou t t he

r,

month o f J u l y of t h l s y e a r t	h	.	w	t	began t o mark>r:
In Bus t rXl la	i t s product	known	as Medlfast .	Like	tke L',

..

1 -.

obesity. I t i n v o l v e s t h e s u b s t l t u t i o n e i t h e r f o r a l l

-- -

ordinary meals , or fo r - the maJor l ty the reo f , o f t he p repa r -

a t l o n whlch 1s to be rnlxed with wacer. The t r ea tmen t , i f

i n f u l l s u b s t l t u t i o n f o r meals, 1s i n t ended to l a s t over

c

a pe r lod o f f lve days. Hovever , a warning on I ts packaglng

----- -

says :

-&id. I'

7

The psoduct 1s s o l d i n a cardboqrd box In which t h ier

D e s p i t e s t a t e m e n t s t o The con t r a ry i n the evldence

of Mr. Allen, who is t h e manager o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C l i n i c a l

D ie t e t i c s D iv i s ion o f The a p p l l c a n t , t h e r e are s u b s t a n t i a l

d l f fe rences be tween the s & - a packaglng and t h a t of

-	I2
r\

t The packages them elves are n o t , when

%Tz?!E= -

looked a t toge ther , capable of oaus ing confus ion , l e t a lone

deception. No submiss ion t o t he con t r a ry was made by

L f - (2-

c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l l c a n t . €&+e6%e[is b a s e d e n t i r e l y

upon the l l ke l ihood o f decep t lon of consumers caused, rtff

I-

h i s sutnkuw , by - t use of the word Medifast .

. It should be mentloned i n r e l a t l o n t o t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s

packaging tha t the only packages In ev idence a re those

apparent ly used m Europe. I have assumed, as did counsel,

thar ;	t he app lzcan t ' s Aus t r a l i an packag lng	wlll	be	slmilar	t o
t h a t	of	its	packaglng In Europe, but	there	LS no evidence

thar ; any Aus t ra l ian packag~ng ex l s t s a t the present t lme.

The box m whlch the respondent ' s p roduct i s packed

s u g g e s t s t h a t I t 1s a Barlow product. I t d i s p l a y s t h e

word "BarlovP reasonably prominently m tn ree p l aces , and

I n another the uords, "Barlow Pharmaceutlcels Divlsion,

Barlow Group Llmited, Sydney, Australia". There 1s no

s t a t emen t expres s ly say ing tha t t he p roduc t	1 s	made	i n
Australia.

I n there appear the fo l lowing some a d v e r t i s l n g m a t e r l a l whlch has been tendered

words:

' V H O ARE

BARLOVl?

The name Barlovl may be new

t o you. The Barlow Group and

its	associated companies have
over	twenty years exper lecce in

t h e n u t r i t i o n a l	and	d i e t a r y	area.
Our	p roduc t s	are	e s t s b l i s h e d

brand leaders i n t h e d i e t a r y m a r k e t

i n the United Kingdom and severa l

o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .

Addl t lona l ly , p roducts deve loped

by us	a r e now	belng sold throughout
t h e v o r l d	by	s e v e r a l vel1 known
pharmaceutical	companies.	You can

rest a s s u r e d t h a t we a r e a h lgh ly

r e p u t a b l e	company	wi th cons ide rab le
exper ience	I n	t h e s p e c i a l i s t d i e t a r y

market. You can recommend Medifast

wi th absolu te conf idence .

The brochure which contains those words was evidently

in tended f o r c i r c u l a t i o n amongs t medica l prac t i t ioners

a n d p e r h a p s d i e t i t i a n s a s w e l l .

The name "Barlot1 Pharmaceutlcals" 1s r e g l s t e r e d as a

bus iness name, a company Poteme Pty. Llmited of 31 Wunulla

Road, P o i n t P i p e r b e m g t h e r e g i s t e r e d p r o p r i e t o r of it.

A c c o r d i n g	t o	t h e r e g i s t e r e d p a r t i c u l a r s ,	t h e	commencing
d a t e	o f	the business conducted under the	name	Barlow

Pharmaceut lcals was 1 A p r i l , 1982. There i s evidence as

to the sha reho lde r s and directors of t h e company, b u t I do

n o t f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o r e f e r t o t h e s e .

The on ly execu t ive of t he r e sponden t t o be ca l l ed

was a Miss Kennedy, who is i t s promotlons manager. She

s a i d , i n a n a f f i d a v i t whlch was o r i g i n a l l y c o n f i d e n t i a l b u t

which 1s no longe r so except as t o c e r t a l n m a t t e r s which I

s h a l l nor;	ment ion ,	tha t she	first	contac ted doc tors
i n r e l a t l o n t o M e d i f a s t	i n	l a t e J u n e	of	t h l s y e a r .

A t or about the same t ime the respondent , according

to he r ev idence , con tac t ed ~ho lesa l e r s o f pha rmaceu t l ca l

products and some purchased stock immediately. A number

of wholesa le rs in Queens land , Met: South Wales, the

A u s t r a l i a n C a p l t a l T e r r i t o r y and Vic to r l a f rom l a t e

June 1982 c a r r i e d , and have s ince tha t da t e ca r r l ed ,

s tocks of Nedifas t . A number have placed repeat orders,

Miss Kennedy a l s o s a i d t h a t i n e a r l y J u l y 1982 t h e

respondent recelved i t s first orders of PIedifast f rom

doctors . It p l a c e d a d v e r t i s e m e n t s f o r M e d i f a s t i n

pub l i ca t ions known a s Modern Medlclne and Current Thera-

p e u t i c s i n J u l y 1982. T h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e s a l d t o be

d i s t r i b u t e d t o d o c t o r s I n a l l S t a t e s o f A u s t r a l i a . Miss

Kennedy then deposed to the number of orders rece ived

from doctors and a lso as t o c e r t a l n a d v e r t l s i n g . I do n o t

r e f e r t o t h e d e t a l l o f t h i s e v l d e n c e .

I n c ross -examlnat lon she sa ld tha t the respondent

operated	r;hrough	r e p r e s e n t a t l v e s	who	were	i n t h e f i e l d .
She	sald they had been act ive	i n t h e l a s t	s1x	weeks	o r so.
A	t	t he company ' s o f f i ce a t	Wunulla	Road,	P o m t P i p e r , s h e

s a l d , t h e r e were only herself and a s e c r e t a r y . She added

t h a t t h e s a l e s manager came I n when he d l d what she

desc r lbed a s h l s end o f t h e week books; but as I understood

her ev idence , normal ly there uere only present a s e c r e t a r y

and he r se l f . f o r i n s t r u c t l o n s a n d She s a ld t he r ep resen ta t lves t e l ephoned

came In a t t h e end o f each week.

She sa ld she had contac t ? ,n th one o f t h e d i r e c t o r s , a

Mr. Lowe, whom ahe descr lbed as her "boss" . She was

asked where the product was made and s h e s a i d , "1 am l e d

t o b e l l e v e i t i s i n A u s t r a l l a as fa r as I know". She

was asked whereabouts In Aus t ra l ia , and she sa ld , "1 would

n o t know, I do n o t know". She was a lso asked where the

r e s p o n d e n t ' s s t o c k s w e r e s l t u a t e d and she said:

"Most o f o u r s t o c k s a t t h i s stage I b e l l e v e a r e

s t o r e d a t TNT.

That 1s Thomas Nat lonwlde Transport , 1s It? --- Yes,

t h a t i s c o r r e c t .

A t t h e l r p r e m i s e s I n Sydney?--- Yes.

Are	the goods already packed?--- Yes."
One	o f t he r e sponden t ' s r ep resen ta t lves a l so gave

evldence. She 1s a Nrs. Harman. She s a d t h a t s h e had

been a sales r e p r e s e n t a t l v e s m c e a b o u t t h e m l d d l e o f

J u l y 1982. Since taklng up h e r p o s i t i o n s h e had v l s l t e d

a t least	200	r e t a l l p h a r m a c i e s a t L i v e r p o o l ,	Campbelltown
and Sydney	fo r t he pu rpose o f	s e l l l n g	t o r e t a i l p h a r m a c i s t s

the product so ld and a l so ment lonsd de l iver ing the product to medica l Medifast She . gave evidence o f t h e q u a n t l t l e s

p r a c t i t i o n e r s In L lve rpoo l , Campbelltown and Sydney. I n h e r

o r a l e v i d e n c e s h e s a l d t h a t s t o c k s w e r e k e p t I n her house. .

She sa id her husband was involved I n the packaglng of

t he	p roduc t	and	he	brought	them	home.	S h e	s a i d	t h a t
s h e	d i d	n o t	know who	made	the	p roduc t .	She	s a ld	t ha t

It was made i n Australia, t h a t was a l l she knew. She

was asked where It was packaged and she said, "I do not -

I know t e l l you the address" . i t i s ove r - It 1 s around Cronul la ; bu t I cou ld no t

I	I
I

The appl icant and the respondent each market evidence I have r ecoun ted e s t ab l i shes tha t t he

a p r o d u c t c l a m e d .

t o b e b e n e f l c i a l i n t he t r ea tmen t o f obes i ty . Each product

i s i n t e n d e d t o s t a n d as 6 replacement for normal meals over

a	pe r iod o f f ive days , subJec t	zo	t h e q u a l l f i c a t i o n t h a t
t he r e sponden t ' s p roduc t	may	be used to r ep lace on ly	some

meals. Each product 1s s o l d I n a box c o n t a i n i n g 15 packages,

t he con ten t s of \!hlch a r e t o be mixed 1.-,lth water. One

product i s known as Modlfast and the other Medifast .

If	the re were	no	o t h e r I s s u e i n t h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y
a p p l i c a t l o n I	would have	l i t t l e h e s i t a t i o n	i n concluding

tha t t he marke t ing o f t he two vould prima fac ie be l i k e l y

to cause decept ion to consumers or potential consumers and

would be l l k e l y zo cause such people to be mlsled. I say

what I have, conscious of the competmg submlsslons which I

have been put to me on zhe quest lon and not a t a l l unmindful

of the fac t tha t the packaging o f t h e two p roduc t s , as I

have ea r l l e r men t ioned , 1s d i s t i n c t l v e . i

But the c l o s e s m i l a r i t y o f t h e two names, Modifast

and	N e d l f a s t , a n d t h e f a c t	t h a t	i f	t h e	two	were on	the
market	together	there would,	or?	a	prlma	fame	b a s i s , b e

l l k e l y t o be decept lon i s no t de t e rmina t ive o f t he outcome

o f t h i s market a p p l l c a t l o n . T h a t i s because of t h e l i m l t e d

lng of the applicant's product whlch has so f a r taken

p l a c e I n k u s t r a l l a . I n d e e d , t h e r e a l l t y 1 s t h a t no market-

l n g has t he app l l can t shou ld be t aken p l ace a t a l l . Perhaps some may t h m k t h a t

comrnended f o r Its apparent cau t ious

a t t i t u d e t o t h e r n a r l r e t m g o f I ts product and apparent

f rankness wlth which I t h a s d i s c l o s e d t h e s o u r c e of I ts

manufacture. Bu t t h e e n t i r e t y of the evldence i s n o t i n

and i f a view such as t h i s were to be espoused, i t could

only be formed on a p r m a f ame b a s l s . On the o the r hand ,

I f e e l bound t o s a y - and I r e a l l s e t h a t e v i d e n c e o n any

ma t t e r may	be	lncomplete	a t	this	l n t e r l o c u t o r y s t a g e o f t h e
case -	t h a t I	d o f l n d	i t odd	tha t	the respondent ' s p romot lons
manager	does not	seem	q u t e s u r e w h e t h e r t h e p r o d u c t	1 s	I n

fect manufactured i n A u s t r a l i a and f u r h e r does not know

where the p roduc t i s manufactured aEd packaged. I r e p e a t

t h a t t h e r e 1 s n o t h m g on che respondent ' S packaging which

lnd lca tes the p lace of manufac ture of i t s product .

Be t h a t as It may, I have reached the concluslon xhat

the a p p l l c a n t must f a l l I n t h e a p p l l c a t l o n w h l c h i t now

h' 7

b r lngs . T v t ' s product 1s on the market and 1s

a v a l l a b l e f o r sa le a t a number of pharmacles and

p robab ly f rom o the r sou rces a s well. The-ap-n&ea&+s-

Droduct - is not on tine market a t a l l . It i s s t i l l I

-------

undergoing tr ials. 1

Counsel f o r t he app l l can t f aced up to the p rob lem

wl th vrhlch t h a t e v i d e n c e c a l l e d t h i s c l r c u m s t a n c e c o n f r o n t e d h m b y s a y l n g

on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l l c a n t e s t a b h s h e d ,

a t least on a p r i m a f a c l e b a s l s , t h a t lr: was l l k e l y t h a t a

n o t i n s i g n i f l c a n t	number	o f d o c t o r s i n	Australia	would be
mlsled o r p r o d u c t i n t o x h l n k l n g t h a t	deceived	by	the marke t lng of	the respondent ' s

It was t h e a p p l l c a n t ' s p r o d u c t .

They would be aware - e i t h e r t h r o u g h a t t e n d m g t h e c o n f e r -

ence In I n t e r n a t l o n a l J o u r n a l Rome, r e c e l v l n g a l e t t e r t h e r e a f t e r , r e a d m g t h e

of Obesi ty o r t h rough the con tac t s

made	o r a l l y a n d	l n wri tmg by	t h e a p p l l c a n t h e r e	-	of	Modifast.
They would t o t h i n k t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t ' s p r o d u c t	be	h k e l y ,	when	Medifast	came	t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n ,

iras I n facr : ava i lab le

on the market. I have given this submission due conslder-

a t l o n . I t h l n k t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l w e l g h t i n It bu t , a s

counse l fo r t he r e sponden t s t r e s sed , med ic ine 1s a s c l e n t l f l c

profess ion and i t would be wrong t o assume t h a t t h e r e would

be the decep t lon wh lch counse l fo r t he app l l can l ; c l amed

would be l i k e l y t o e x l s t If the marke t ing of the respondent ' s

p roduct cont inues .

Havlng r e f l e c t e d o n t h e m a t t e r , I do not th ink

one could conclude t h a t t h e r e LS, on a p r ima f ac i e basls,

any r e a l r i s k o f p e o p l e a c t u a l l y b e i n g m l s l e d or decelved.

T h a t s i t u a t l o n will c o n t m u e so long as news o f t he

a p p l i c a n t ' s p r o d u c t 1s r e s t r l c t e d i n t h e way t h a t It

p r e s e n t l y 1s. A t the most , there may perhaps be confuslon,

bu t confus ion i s n o t enough. I r e f e r t o PlcWllllam's Vines

Pty. Llmlted v. McDonald's System of Australia Pty. Llmited

(1980) 33 A.L.R. 334 and to Pa rkda le Custom B u i l t F u r n i t u r e

Pty. Limlted v. Puxu Pty. Llmlted (High Court of Austral ia ,

11 h g u s t , 1982, as yet unrepor ted) . O f cou r se , the

p o s l t l o n may be materially d l f f p r e n t a f t e r F e b r u a r y n e x t

i f , as	a n t l c l p a t e d ,	the applicant's	product comes	o n	t o	t h e
market. I should	add	thaz	In	reaching	my	conclus lon I
have	taken	In to account	the ev ldence of	a	Dr.	L a l J l c a l l e d

on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t . I t shows perhaps confusion

but no more.

Be fo re conc lud ing th l s j udgmen t , t he re a re some ma t t e r s

I would mentlon. Both counsel engaged m a he lp fu l r ev iew

o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , p a r t l c u l a r l y Taco Bel l Pty. Limited v.

Taco Comwany of Austral ia Limited (1982) A.T.P.R. 40-277,

Taco	Company	o f Aus t r a l i a Inc . v .	Taco	Bel l	Pty. Limited
(Fede ra l Cour t o f Aus t r a l i a ,	22	July,	1982,	unreported)	and

t h e Puxu case t o which I h a v e e a r l i e r r e f e r r e d . Under o t h e r

c i rcumstances the submlssions of counsel would c a l l f o r

some d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of t h e Judgments In those cases

but I do no t t h ink t h l s 1s necessary f o r t h e outcome of

t h i s c a s e , and I b e a r I n mmd That t h i s i s a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y

appl ica t ion which per force needs to be de te rmined as a

ma t t e r of u r g e n c y . i n r e l a t l o n t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , I

would say, however, that I do not regard this c a s e a s

governed by Taco Bel l because there the evldence d l d not

d l s c l o s e a t a l l t h a t t h e American company's name was

known in Aus t r a l i a o the rwise than by people who had v l s i t e d

the Uni t o c e r t a i n t r a d e ted S ta tes o f Amer ica . In th i s regard I r e f e r a l s o

mark c a s e s c l t e d by E l l l c o t t J. I n h l s

Judgment a t first l n s t a n c e i n t h e Taco B e l l l l t l g a t l o n

(supra at p .43,496) namely the Seven	Up	CornDany	v.	O.T.
Limited	(1947)	75 C.L.R.	203 and r e Yanx (1951) 82 C.L.R.	199.

Then	I	shou ld say tha t	a	m a J o r l t y o f c a s e s a r i s i n g f o r
L

decls lon under the Trade Pract lces Act do not concern

pharmaceut lca l p roducts . Whatever the l ega l p r inc ip les

i n r e l a t l o n t o o r d l n a r y p r o d u c t s

p U m - 1 - y y-n lr i d P s a m o d

,--. r 7 --,

thef ie l syometh ing which causes spec la l concern	when	one
.

comes

to

p

roducts

o

f

the

k

ind

in

ques

t

ion

here

.

Medic

ine

1

and pharmacy a r e , i n a s e n s e , i n t e r n a t l o n a l p r o f e s s i o n s .

Medical and pha rmaceu t i ca l l i t e r a tu re f rom a l l over the

world 1 s c l r c u l a t e d t o d o c t o r s I n t h i s count ry , and doc tors

/

and	o t h e r s I n	th l s	f l e l d	-	d i e t l t l a n s , f o r l n s t a n c e	-	hear
/

abou t o the r p roduc t s ove r seas when t h e v t r a v e l , as they

f r equen t ly do , fo r t he pu rpose o f i rnp rov lng the i r

-

knowledge.

It is t r u e t h a t t h e r e a r e stringent r e s t r l c t i o n s on

-.

t h e l m p o r t o f g o o d s o f t h l s k i n d m t o t h i s c o u n t r y and

t h e r e a r e o t h e r s a f e g u a r d s a s well, b u t i t seems t o me

-

tha t wha t was s a l d by Lloyd-Jacob J . In Vitamin Limited's

kp3llsLdLloll f o r a Trade Mark (1956) R.P.C. 1 is as relevant1

-

T o r e m s c a s e a s i t was for the one be ing dec ided by h ls

-

.

Lordship. He s a i d ( p . 13) :

c

"There 1s a second fac tor which I t seems t o me

t o t e r -

cis ing a d i s c r P t 1 o n a r v i u r i s d l c t l o n , and tha€ 1 s

t h a t t h e e v l d e n c e d l s c l o s e s t h a t t h e mark has been

USea Oy the Appel lan t upon and In re la t ion to a

r m e u y o r an a l l e p d r-rnpdy T'nr a r t h r i r i c c o r n l o n s

m human be inps . The f a c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t l o n was

made i n r e s p e c t of pharmaceut ica l subs tances ind ic-

a t e s t h a t 1%. i s I n a similar f i e l d t h a t user by t h e

Respondents 1 s contemplated. Havlng regard to the

f a c t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d l s c l o s e s a genuine bus iness

on t h e p a r t o f t h e A p p e l l a n t s i n t h e i r c o u n t r y o f

o r ig ln , and tha t adve r t l s e rnen t s of such a re r each lng

t h i s c o u n t r y and appearlng I n l i b r a r l e s or p l a c e s o f

r e f e r e n c e t o which medlcal men may r e s o r t , i t seems

t o me t h a t I am bound t o c o n s l d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t ,

w i th the pas sage of t une , some c o n f l l c t may occur

between	t h e u s e o f t h e	mark	by	the present Respondents
and the advert isement and user	of	t h e	qark overseas	by

t h e p r e s e n t A p p e l l m t s . H a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e I n t e r -

n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r whlch medicine and the all ied

sc lences have assumeu ar~i IIILI. ~~~' I n g l y assumed over

t h e - d l 0 , L.C s e e . ' rns t o me t h a t t h e h u r t

must-tx p d ~ . L i c u i a l . l y c a r e l u l t o see t h a t I n exeTcls lng

itsd%s&mm UII&I t h e k i iil e p u D l l c m z e r e s - n s

n o t ETany way	imDeri l led.	k'or my	p a r i i a111 nu	t	s a t i s -
f l e d ttrat	, In zl lowing	to be used	by	manufacturers	I n

t h i s c o u n t r y as a brand name f o r a pharmaceut ical

subs tance a	word	w h c h 1s I n f a c t u s e d	by	an	l.mericm
C o r p o r a t i o n i n r e s p e c t	03	t h e	same	material	and

"advertised in Journa ls , which on the evidence

a r e r e c e i v e d I n t o t h l s c o u n t r y and r e f e r r e d t o ,

t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t v1111 be bes t se rved by per -

m l t t l n g r e g l s t r a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , on both those

grounds It seems t o me	t h a t it is my	d u t y t o
l n d l c a t e t h a t	i n	t h e l l g h t o f t h e f u l l e r c o n s i d e r -

a t i o n which t h e m a t t e r h a s r e c e l v e d I n t h i s C o u r t the appl lca t lon should not be permi t ted to proceed .”

H i s Lordship i n the exe rc i se of h l s d i s c r e t i o n r e f u s e d

r e g l s t r a t i o n o f t h e mark.

(Publ ica t lon of a paragraph noc here

t r a n s c r l b e d p r o h l b l t e d by h i s Honour

e x c e p t t o p a r t l e s	and	c e r t a i n o t h e r
persons . )

F l n a l l y I r e f e r t o t h e a p p l i c a n t ‘ s c a s e b a s e d on

pass ing o f f . The cons ide ra t ions ea r l i e r men t ioned i nd lca t e

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t i s n o t e n t l t l e d t o s u c c e e d on a prlma

f a c l e b a s i n r e s p e c t of t ha t cause of ac t lon , because It

has no t e s t ab l i shed , so f a r a s Australia is concerned,

t h a t t h e word Nod l fa s t has become d l s t l n c c i v e I n t h l s

count ry of any product tha t It has.

For the r easons I have g iven , the appl lca t lon 1s d i s -

missed. There IS, however, a f u r t h e r c l a l m made by t h e

applicant for i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f . T h l s is based on matters

q u l t e d i f f e r e n t from any r e l l e d upon I n t h e a p p l l c a t i o n o f

whlch I have j u s t dlsposed. Direct lons have been given In

this mat t e r and it will proceed for hear lng on a n l n t e r l o c u t o r y

WANDER LIMITED v. EARLOlI GROUP LIMITED ( G 137/82)

Paragraph omlt ted from ,judgment LO be c l r cu la t ed .

I ,

This paragraph RZSTRICTED t o v a r t l e s a n d c e r t a l n

other	persons .	See	o rder	made on 23 August, 1982	i
i

T h a t s o r t o f c o n s i d e r a t l o n l e a d s me t o t h l n k t h a t t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e h e a l t h a u t h o r l t l e s	of	th i s count ry should be aware	,
1 :

-_ .- - I

of the marke t lng , or poss lb le rnarke tmg, of t h e two products . I

--__ -

Accordingly a c o p y o f t h l s Judgment m11 be sen t t o the

-------

At torney-Genera l , wixh the sugges t lon tha t he send i t to such

__ _-

a u c h o r i t l e s as he sees f l t . These may i n c l u d e t h e

I

Dehartment of Heal th , one o r more o f t h e S t a t e D e p a r c s n t s o f I

- -- .- . . . . . __ I

Health	and	the	Trade	Pract ices	Commisslon.	Whether	the-
~

-

Attorney-General does send the Judgment t o any of these- I

- --_

a u t h o r l t l e s	and	what,	~ r ^	a n y t h l n g t h o s e a u t h o r l t i e s d o ,	i f	i	d
I

t h e m a t t e r 1s r e f e r r e d , i s a ma t t e r for the Attorney-General

~

I

and t h o s e a u t h o r l t l e s r e s p e c t l v e l y . I draw attention t o t h e

L

- - - - - - - l

f a c t t h a t t h e r e 1 s mate r l a1 m t h s e n d e n c e o f b o t h p a r t i e s I

and a l s o i n t h e i r p a c k a g m g a n d a d v e r t i s l n g w h l c h s u g g e s t s 1

t h a t t h e u n s u v e r v l s e d u s e o f t h e n p r o d u c t s may be harmful

t o t h e h e a l t h of some people .