Weitmann, Hans Dieter v Katies Ltd

No judgment structure available for this case.

HANS

DJCTER

K E i W 1 4 A ' R

'

J33m'?m : ........ ........ ........ ........

8 3

....... .'.:.

.....

.(Appl.icnc$.). .. i

i

........ ........ ........ ........ .

N!D

-

: ..

.KAT.XdS. 1-m.. ..?PO. .Q b k E . ...

........ ........ .

rF.e~.?2?Kkn.?s

I .

........ ........ ........ ........ .

1 November	1977
Sydney

- !

: !

I	,
!

CATCHWORDS

3

Trade Proctlces

l.ct

1974-1977

- kppl . icat ion for

in junc t ion - sec t ion 52(1)

- meaning

of

Ilmislead

o r deceive" -

sec t ion 53 (c )

- meaning

of

~ ~ s p o ~ ~ s o r s h i p ~ ~

- use o€ l lSaint GermainI1 as a t r a d e

mark

-

a p p l i c a b i l i t y of passing

ofT principles.

Hans Dieter Weitman??

V.

Katies

Ltd.

and

others

G No. 45 of 77

Befor-e Franlri J.

Sydney 1 November 1977.

Between

And

K4TIES LTD. AI\K! 0TFX:F.S

-

Respondents

I

REASONS FOR JUD3,TflNT

DELIVERED

The

appl icant ,

N r .

Hzns

Dieter l!e.~trflai~n~ s6eks :XI

i t I J a f A t d L Luia,

Zgainst i:ai;ies

LinuCed and thrce

o Lhzr conpdnles i n T.ihzt r , l J .gh t

broadly be

c a l l e d the Katie;

Croup

(011 o€ whlcl? i will reiei- t o 8::.

I

Ithe respondent * ) D

The proceerlillgs are under

S . 80 of 'ilie

Trade

P rac t i ces Act

1974-1977 and are

based

u.pon ss.52 and 53(c) o f that

I

Act.

Stripped

of

refinements

the

basj.c

facts

ore

t h a t t h e

applicz!?:

has adopted appllcan t

as i ts t r a d e mark the

words

"Saint

Germain"

The

has

sough t r eg i s t r a t ion

as

t r a d e mar-1s

f o r women's

ou ter

!

wear	c lo th ing of	the	words	"St.	Germain"	together	with	t h e l e t t e r s	~
!

llS.G.11

111 a p a r t i c u l a r form

and

a l s o t h e

words

"Sa in t Germainll

toge ther w

i

th t h e same l e t t e r s i n the same particular €orm.

The appl icant i s a clothing

designer

m d wholesaler.

The

c lo th lng Ihich he sells wholesale ].S made abroad to

his SpccificoT:.

and

design

by

fore ign c lo th ing manufac turers .

Par t icu lar ly

r e l e v a n t t o

th i s

c a s e a r e s h i r t s , i n c l u d i n g

womenls

T-sh i r t s ,

which

are manufactured

€or him

m

Hong

Kong

and which he imports

f o r s a l e .

subs-tantlally through	\:;hat	a r e known	as bou t iques , pa r t i cu la r ly	in
the middle and top level.

The

respondect

has

imported several thousand T-shir ts in to

Aus t r a l i a v:ith

t h e name

IISalnt

Germain"

embroidered

near

the top

o f t he l e€ t s l eeve

In

l e t t e r s a b o u t

one centllnetre

i n helgh t.

No

s a l e s have yet been

made by the respondent

of any of

t h e s

shirts but

it

l n t e l i a s t o s e l l

them

with

a

small l a b e l

a i ' f i x e d t o

.

t he i n s ide	o f	t h e n e c k b a r i n g t h e	name	llScharade fo r I<a t i e s1# and	I
I

a lso bear ing

a

swing

l a b e l t i e d t o

thls neck

l a b e l also

bearmg

I

t h e

name

l t I < a t i e s l l i n l e t t e r s of

about

4

c e n ~ ~ m e t r e s i n h e i g h t .

it

is a l leged by

the app l i can t

that a

sale by

the respondent :

of

these shlrts would be

in con t r aven t ion of

S. 52( l ) , In t h a t i I;

would be to mislead o r deceive" and a l s o t h a t

coliduct

! I . .

.

that

is misleading o r deceptive

o r i s l l k n l y

'

it would

be

j n contravefitlon

of s .53(c)

i n t h a t

it

would be

a

representa t ion tha t the eoods

had

I

,

I

a

sponsorship which they

d id

not have.

2.

I-t

IS t o be

noted tha’c

t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t

1s i n t h e nĉ

t u x C C :

a &a

tmc- t i n p a c t i o n , in

that al; t h e date

of

the hear ing no

conduct, such

as IlAFj

a l leged would la11 v n th in S . 52( 1)

and s * ! 5 5 ( ~ >

,

I

had talren in junc t ion may

place.

Section

aO(5) makes i

l;

c l e a r t!lat

a f i n a l

be

granted, Ihether

o r n o t the conduct prohibxt~c? has:

been previously engaged in,

i f

in t he absence

of

a n

in junc t ion

it

appears t o t h e Court that the respondent will-engage

i n conduct whit

_.

would

c o n s t i t u t e a

contravent ion o €

S . 5 2 ( l ) o r S. 53(c) .

Th i s i s so

I .

v!hether

o r n o t t h e r e

i s

(I. D . .an

imminent danger of substantlal

damage t o any person

...l1

i f

the respondent engages

i n

the conduct

._

sought

to

be

prohlbited.

I wlll

consider €irst of a l l -che quea t ions vhich

a r i s e u d c ~ ,

S. 52 which provides :

-

(1) A

corpora t ion sha l l no t , m

t r a d e o r commerce,

eng;age

.

i n c o n d m t

that

i s misleading o r decept ive o r i s l i k e l y t o

L

mislead o r deceive.

I

(2)

Nothing

111

the succeeding provisions of

this

Dlvis ion

s h a l l be

taken

as

l i ~ n i t i n g

by

impl ica t ion the genera l i ty

of

sub-section

(1).

I

Engaging i n conduct

is def ined 111 S. 4 ( 2 ) .

T h a t s ec t ion

p r o v i d e s t h a t

a

re ference to conduct ,

when

tha t exp res s ion

1s used

. .	as	a noun,	s h a l l bB	read	as	a	re ference to the domg of	’l.. .any
l

‘ j	act.. .‘l.

The

respondents

are

corporat ions

and

are engaged

i n t r a d e

:

‘ I

o r commerce

s o t h e q u e s t i o n t o

be

decj-ded i s whether

it would

be

l i k e l y t o m i s l e a d

o r deceive within

t‘ne

meaning of

s.52

if

t h e

respondent exhibited a shirt for s a l e , o r sold such

a shirt i n one

o f

i t s r e t a i l s t o r e s ,

where

that

s h l r t b a r e t h e

name

‘!Saint

Gcrmain

on the s leeve

=and a

l a b e l a f f l x e d t o

the.

l n s i d e of

t h e

neck

v h x h

bore the

words

“Scharade

€or Kal;ies1l

and

l;he

swing l a b e l b e a ~ ~ n g

-chi .

name l1Katiesl1.

Vh~lst

one

should no t be too ready to apply to

a

case

such

as

t h i s , v h i c h a p p e a r s a t

f i rs t

glance

to

be

i n t h e

nai:urc

o f

a

3 . -.

passing o€f ac t io l l , the %a?:. re levant to such an action, I h:,-~- come to Lhe conclusion khat 111 a general sense much o C thai; l d r

conduct 1s misleading or decept ive o r l ike ly to lnlslead o r d c c e ~ . ~ .

The House of Lords i n Redc!almy

v. --f E m h a

1896 A.C.

139,

held

that

a t r a d e r was

n o t

e n t i t l e d

t o

p a s s

o f f his goods

a8

the

'

goods

o f

a110

t h e r t r a d e r

by

s e l l i n g them under-a name

which

is l l a b l ( '

to deceive be l iev ing

purchasers

(vhether

immediate

or

ult

ima-te)

into

,

that

they are buylng

the

goods

01

tha t

o t h e r t r a d e r

alt'no;

i n its

primary meaning,

the

name

vas merely a

true desc r ip t ion o f

t h e goods. Lord Halsbury

a t p.204

said:-

"For

myself,

I

b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f

law

may

be

v e r y p l a i n l y s t a t e d ,

and

tha t

i s ,

t h a t nobody

has

any

r i g h t t o represent h is goods as tl?e	goods of Somebody
else. I t

Lord IIerschel l a t p. 210

said:-

"The name

o f a person,

o r v o r d s forming par t

o f

a corrUxo~

s tock

o€

language,

may

become

s o

f a r a s soc ia t ed vn th t he

goods of

a p a r t i c u l a r maker that ik is capable o f proof

tha t the use o f

them

by

Lhemselvcs

without explanat ion

o r q u a l i f i 6 a t l o n by

another manufac tu re r

would

deceLve

a

purchase r i n to t he be l i e f

that

he

was

g e t t i n g t h e

!

goods o f

'A! when he was rea l ly

geL

t

lng

t he

goods

of '13'. ,

I n a

case of

tlns d e s c r i p t l o n t h e

mere proof

by

the

p l a i n t i f . € t h a t

the defendant was

using a mane,

word,

o r

8 1

device whlch

he had

adopLed

to d i s t l ngu i sh h i s

goods

would no t entitle him t o my

r e l i e f .

He could

only

obta in IL

by

Proving fu r the r

t ha t

t he

de€endan t

was

I

using it under such circunlsiances

o r ln

such manner

as

to

put

o€€ his goods as t h e goods o€ t h e plaintiff.

IT

he could succeed

i n p r o v i n g t h i s

I

think

he would,

cjn

-

7 1

- k - ~ ~ l i ' - ~ ~ n d

~ v q ~ - i T h p s

?,P

n n t l i - l e d tr,

an

lnymct lon ."

4.

' C h l s pzs.-,ag;o was

c l te i l ln t h c Juclgnmt

of the

EL&

C n c 1 L

i n Co1lit"c v.

M r s a l i n o Gui_se:?pe E

Frc!;ello Socj e t:)

kvnnl>;*c: (191

5) I

16 C.L.R.

34i1 a t pp.

350-351 where the Court

sa.Ld tha t ' t he

principles 01

law appl icable

t o t he ca se t hen

before

it

were

those 5

i n

the above passage from

t h e

judgment

02

Lord Hersche l l which

t h e

Court described

as

'I the often cited passage.!!

.,

Whether conduct

i s decept ive j n t h e sub'jec t

case m

~

be

~

t

e x m i n e d i n

the

light

of

vha t the a l leged decept ive

words

mean

t o

'

the re levant purchaser

when

used on the sleeve

of

t h e l a d i e s

T-sh i r t s

as they a r e

t o be

so ld .

T h i s involves two

questions,

f irst , who

is t o be considered as t h e rel.evant purchaser ar?d ceco?-:'.

what

will

t h e words

mean

t o t h a t p u r c h a s e r ? T h i s

seems

to

].end

-W

;

two

of

the

ques t ions which a r i se in

a

pass ing of€ ac t ion ,

f k s t ,

vha t

i s

the appropr i a t e c l a s s

of

p u r c h a s e r s t o

be

considered

m-d

secondly,

have the

words

"Saint Gerrnainl'

acquired vhat

is cormonly

c a l l e d a

secondary

meaning,

namely

do

t'ney

ind ica - t e t o

the

appropr i a t e

c l a s s

of

pul-chasers that

t h e goods

have

come

f r o m a

,

par t icu lar source , whether the

nm,e

of

that

source

is

Imom or not?

klxLlst

I do no t wish t o say more than i s necessary t o declcle.

t h i s c a s e

it

seems

l i k e l y that

the quest ioi l

whe-ther t he app l i can t

I.

has

any business

or goodwill t o p r o t e c t ,

o r will

s u f f e r any

damage

by the condu'ct

sought

t o be

prolllbj ted,

are

n o t , a t l e a s t i n

the absence of	some	pecul la r c i rcumstances , mat te rs o f s ign l f icaqce : '
under S. 52.

Connng

now

I;o

t he f ac t s o f t he ca se , t he ev idence

shows

t1-k

t h e words

"Saint Germam'!

are

a p t t o d e s c r i b e

an

a r e a i n P a r i s

on

the Le f t

Bank xhich is known

as

a

cen t r e of t he f a sh ion

world and

where

a

g r e a t

number

of fash ionable bout iques se l l ing l ad les

cl.othing

are

s i tua t ed .

I

The

applicant called witnesses and gave evidence hlmself.

O f t h e witnesses,

one was

t h e e d i t o r

01

t h e mJgazine

'Node t , one

~

the

e d i t o r of

t h e magazine

the

'Ragtrzder '

, t h ree ve re

retailers,

as	being from the purchasing publlc.

O f t h e two

purchasers ca l led

by

the appl icant both

had

flrst ' .

known of purchased a garment coming from the appl icant bear ing

Sa in t Germain as a Pashionable par t

of

P a r i s and l -a te r h &

the name

"Sairl; Germain.

One purchaser said t h a t if she sav "Saint Grrma~r"

on a T - s h i r t

she would probably enquire

as t o who manufac-tured it

and the o ther sa id

o€

the

name

U.

. .

.

.first and foremost

i n my mx?.

it represents a manufacturer of clo'ihcs, Saint German"

,&:I#:

her

ev ideme ind ica ted

that she rrould have thought

It 77as

a "Saint

Germaln"

shirt

and

i

t

appears she would have been likely -to

have

been

misled

o r

deceived.

Three

of

the

four

witnesses

froln

the

c l a s s

of

p rospec t ive purchasers ca l led

by

the respondent had never

'

heard of o ther one had purchased

Sa in t Germain

i n r e l a t l o n t o a r t l c l e s of

c lo th ing : t he

' I

a garment k?

ar ing

that name

i n Sydney, an5

' .

a l s o knew of Sa in t Germain as a p lace nme , bu t

I consider tk&

I€

she had been

faced

i n a

Kat ies

s tore

v ikh

the

gannent

the

I.

respondent	proposes	t o sell she would not	have been misled	o	r
decelved.

No

customers o r prospective customers

were

c a l l e d from

outs ide Sydney.

The t rade wi tnesses

by and large Itnew of "Saint Germain1I as ,

I .	a	p lace	name	and	several of	them	had	never heard of the appl icant
I

I f

o r of garments

sold wholesale by h i m marked IlSaint

Germain".

There witnesses that they in~ght be l i k e l y -to be decelved l€ they saw

i s

evidence from several

o€

t he app l i can t

* S t r a d e

a

shirt with "Saint

Germain"

marked

on -the sleeve on d i sp l ay a t

a

ICaties

s t o r e as

i s proposed,

but

I

consider

that they are personc

o

a	p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s .

6 .

I

do not

cons ide r t ha t

these

trade wi-tnesscs

are

l lk~>l . - ;

tq

purchase one of

t h e r e l e v a n t

shlrks from a

Rat ies S tore .

I t 1 2

t h e c l a s s

of

persons

\rho

a r e s u c h p ~ o s p e c t ~ b c p m h a s e r s

thaI J S the

1

class	t o	be	cons?_dered In	t h i s	case , a lmost t c the exc lus ion	o f	a i l
o thers .

There asked €or garments as "Sain-t Germaln1! garmen-tS .I

i s

some

evidence

that

sorx? cus tomers o f th ree re ta i le r$

Both the

President

of

-

the

Fashion

Industry

Assoclat

ion and

'

t he P res iden t

o€

the

Apparel

Inpor te rs Assoc la t ion sa id

i n e n d e n c e

that

they rrould

no t th ink

a

s h i r t d i s p l a y e d

f o r s a l e as

proposed

i n

a

Kat les

s t o r e ,

and

rnrked as

proposed,

would

have

any

a s soc la t lon

,

with	t h e applicant.

There was

a considerable amount of evidence re l ied

on by

the i

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

tha t

the bus iness

o f

t h e a p p l i c a q

lay through bout iques

and

that

t h e c l a s s

of

customer

l i k e l y t o

purchase the relevant shir-cs from ICzties,

was

a

clzss

of

customer

who

d i d not

purchase

clothing

requlremenk

from boutiques.

I

accept this

as be ing

of

some

iulportance

in consider ing whether

prospect ive

purchasers ,

who may

a t t a c h a secor?dary

meaning

to

the

I

words "Saint

Germain",

would be l i k e l y t o be deceived o r misled.

The appl icant first adopted the	name	"Saint Germain Fzshionsl.	I 1
!

i n J anua ry

1976 and,has since carried

on

business under

that

name.

He

has used the

trade

mark I1St. Germainll s ince 1974.

I

The

appl icant

has

spent

some

ten thousand do l la rs

I

advert is ing eoods under the

name

"St .

Germain"

OT

"Saxt t

Germam"

and

khis

lncluded expenditure

on

s t a t ione ry , bus iness ca rds ,

invoices ,

give-away

p l a s t i c bags

and

swing

t i c k e t s .

I n

this

judgnent I viill no t draw

any d i s t i n c t i o n between !!St.

Germam" and

!'Saint Germain1I 8s I do EO t	consider any d i r f e r e n c e t o be	of
s ign i f icance .

P r i o r t o

comxencement

of

this

ac t ion

on

1

July 1977, the

appl icant had received publ ic iky

by

v i r t u e

of

category

of

geographical

words.

The

o r i g i n of the words.Saint

Germain i n my

opinion makes

it r a t h e r

d i f f i c u l t ror

these

words to acquire

a

secondary meaning.

I

Another

f e a t u r e i s that

the proposed use

of

t h e rrords

is on

,

the s leeve p a r t i c u l a r l y

of

T-sh i r t s .

It was

e s t a b l i s h e d i n

e v i d e w e ,

t h a t

-

i n r ecen t yea r s , t he re

has

been

a

p r a c t i c e whxh

commenced

overseas ,

and which has

ex-tended t o A u s t r a l i a ,

of

pu t t i ng

prace names on

the

sleeves o r pockcts

of womenPS shirts. I

c o n s i d e r t h a t , i n g e n e r a l ,

a

re levant purchaser , even

with

some

ltnovledge of the

words

"Saint

Germainl!

as

applied

to a woman's

s h i r t by the appl. icant,

would not be

l i k e l y to

conclude, v.'Lttilout

f u r t h e r e x a m ~ n a t i o n , t h a t

a

s h i r t

which bore that

name

had einarate,:

: .

3.

b

Oxford I X c h o n a r y 1 S :

"To

cause t o bel ieve Wh3t

is f a l s e ; t o

mislead

as

l;o

a

ma-Lter

of

f a c l ; , t o l e a d

m t o e r ro r ,

t o i m p o x

upin:

delude,

ta!,e

in .

The

most

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

f o r

t h e

word I1mislcadt1	is:	"To lead a s t r a y ill a c t i o n br	conduct;	to lead	I
' .

i n t o e r r o r :

t o cause

-GO e r r .

I m of

the

opinion

that

one

sktould

cons lder

the

re levant

'

customers as t h o s e l i k e l y t o

be buyjflg shirts Irom a ICaties ]-e tall

s to re .

Tne

evidence 5 h O T I S thax

such

a person is l i k e l y to be a

f a l r l y t y p i c a l meinbzr

of

the

commuinty vho

i s not

seekixg

to

purchase

a

pa r t i cu la r ly h igh f a sh ion a r t i c l e , bu t s eek ing

vhzt

might

be

descr ibed

as good value for money.

In my opinion,

the

I

appl icant

has

no t shown that t h e words "Saint

Germainll,

a p p a r h g

'

on

the s leeve o f l ad ics

shlrts

so ld

as

proposed

i n a

ICatles

s t o r e .

i s l ikely which I m concerned i s h a t o f s e l l i n g

to

deceive

such

customers .

The

r e l emnt conddc t

17iT;h

such shlrts, as proposed,

in

a Kat ies s tore .

I am

n o t r e q ~ ~ i r e d

t o consider {hat would

be

t h e p o s l t i o n

i f

an

ac tua l case

of

deception had been shom, but,

whatever

inay

be

t h e p o s i t i o n i n t h a t c a s e ,

I

am

s a t i s f i e d 50

far

a s a quia ti.me-t & d i c a t i o n

i s concerned, thal; 1 must conslder

whether

a

r easonab ly s ign i f l can t

number

of

po ten t i a l pu rchzse r s

would

be

l i k e l y t o

be

misled

o r d e c e l v e d j u s t i n t h e

same

way

as

.

this question

should

be

considered

i n a passing off ac t ion .

I t

was

nob suggested

tha t the use

of t h e word "Saint Germam" on

t h e

sleeve of

a

lady ' S

shirt was

decep Live

i n t h e s e n s e

that It

might mislead purchasers

i n t o be l iev ing

that

t h e

goods

had

an

o r i g m i n Pari

S.

I

have considered vhether

any

help can be got

from

an

of

the

courts

examination

of

the

approach/in

the

United

Sta-tes

of

America

t o

10.

Federal

Trade

Commission

a i ~ d

thal;,

i n

g e n e r a l ,

i n looking

zt

I

whether an o r t r a d e name principles veTy smilar t o those adopted

a c t 1.5 L1nCaj.r

or d e c e p t i v e i n r e l a t h

t o a t r a d e mark

I

3.11

determming passing off cases

in

Aus t ra l i a

have been applied

(see

general ly , Uni ted States

Code

Rnno

bated T i t l e 15, paral;raph 45

notes 80-82,

m d Coruus J u r i s Securldt1n Vol. 87 pagss 643-049. )

I

am

n o t

s a t l s f l e d that

the appl icant has

made

o u t

a ;~y camw

I

under s.52.

I

pass

now

to t he c l a im unde r s . 53 (c ) .

I

h m e

t o

co lx ider

vhe ther the responder t ,

i f

it

s o l d T-shirts I

wlth

Saint German

on

the sleeve and 111 one of i t s r e t a i l stoi'e',

would ir, connection

with

t h e sui~ply

of goods, represent

that those goods

had a

sponsorship

~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1

they d id not

have.

I cons idw that the mere

plac ing of

an

a r t i c l e on

d i s p l a y f o r

sale

I n a

shop,

i s , m

g e r 2 r a l ;

sufficient

t o make

any

r e l evan t words

thereon ,

vinich

a r e c l e a r i y

v i s i b l e ,

a

representa t ion

by

the t rader v i thout

any

s p e c l f i c

a t t e n t i o n b e i r g d i r 6 c t e d

t o the

vords,

or

~ ! ~ t h o u t

any statement by

the trader

(see Given v. C.V.

Holland (IIoldlngs)

Pty. Lrmited

-

d e l i v e r e d i n

this

Court on

23

June

1977).

The

next ques t ion

i s vhe-ther the

words

a s t hey

would

be

displayed

on

l a d i e s s h i r t s

Xouid

represent

any sponsorship.

I n my secondary meaxing before

opinion the

words

would

have

t

o

acqujre an appropriate

It could be

szicl

that they represcnted

a

sponsorship of

the g p x l s , but evcn

I€ sucn a secondary memlng

had

been

e s t ab l i shed

i n t h i s

case

I

doubt whether the

word

l lsponsorship" covers the ac t ivi-hes

of

a wholesaler,

whose

on ly ?.c L:

of

llsponsol,shlpil 1s

t h e a c q u i s a h o n

of

goods

from

a manufah l r e r

I

Ilsponsor"

seems

t o be:

[lone who

e n t e r s i n t o a n

engagement,

makes

l

%

I I

a Iorrnal	provise	o r pledge o n behalf of aQotliel': sure ty .	The	i
j

word

lkponsorshlplr in connect lor? with t rade

marks

o r

t r a d e

namcs

seems t u envisage some

thing

more

a long the l ines o f

a

c e r t i f l c a t ~ o a

mark.

It i s appropriate t o say that I accept

the

evldence

of

Mr.

NOSS,

a

d i r cc to r o f

Ka t i e s Lmi ted ,

th2t

Iihen

the sh l r - t s

!

bear ing

the name IISalnt Germainll were ordered by the

resporcient

1

it vas unaware o f t h e use o€ that nane by the

app l l can t .

i

I

I add tha t , if I had thought some r e l i e f ?:as

appropr ia te ,

.

I	only	would	ha\-e	granted	a	qua l i€ i ed j n junc t ion r e s t r a in ing t he	I
I

relevant use

of t h e word

"Sain t Ger1r1ai.n~~

wi-Lhout

c l e a r l y

i

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Weitmann, Hans Dieter v Katies Ltd [1977] FCA 76

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

otlxx-wise	had	a l so appea red i n	t he	"Ragtraber" o€ 1-15 Ju ly 1976,	j
1

s o l d t o Australia.	t h e	p u b l i c	thmuugh	about	350-400	r e t a i l	o u t l e t s	i n	i
I

feature	ar ' i ic le	and	t h e	name	"Saint	Gernain"	appears	only once i n	,
small	l e t t e r s .

[1977] FCA 76

1 Nov 1977