misleading and deceptive conduct

Same same but different? Federal Court finds Reckitt Benckiser’s/Nurofen’s marketing of the ‘specific pain relief’ range constitutes misleading and deceptive conduct

Same same but different? Federal Court finds Reckitt Benckiser’s/Nurofen’s marketing of the ‘specific pain relief’ range constitutes misleading and deceptive conduct

22 December 2015
By Hannah Lippmann
Last week Justice Edelman delivered judgment in the Federal Court, finding that Reckitt Benckiser (Australia)’s packaging and website descriptions of the Nurofen ‘Specific Pain Range’ constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’).
Read on
Nappy Land is not happy land: no love on Valentine’s Day for National Australian Nappies

Nappy Land is not happy land: no love on Valentine’s Day for National Australian Nappies

3 March 2014
By Emily Rich
Valentine’s Day and nappies don’t usually appear in the same sentence. However, in a decision handed down by the Federal Court on 14 February 2014 (CI JI Family Pty Limited v National Australian Nappies (NAN) Pty Limited FCA 79) the Federal Court has reminded trade mark owners that they cannot view their marks as an ace-in-the-hole when it comes to the question of misleading and deceptive conduct. In that case, Justice Flick upheld an application to prevent a nappy manufacturer from using its registered trade mark in New South Wales.
Read on