Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation & Ors v. Chase Corporation Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 530

Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation & Ors v. Chase Corporation Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 530

The use of the corporate name 'Chase' by Chase Corporation Limited in Australia is not misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, nor does it constitute passing off, given the lack of a sufficiently common field of activity and absence of evidence of misrepresentation. Mere possible confusion or uncertainty in the minds of relevant members of the public does not suffice for a contravention.

Parties
First Appellant: Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation; Second Appellant: Chase AMP Bank Limited (formerly Chase AMP Limited); Third Appellant: The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.; First Respondent: Chase Corporation Limited; Second Respondent: Adrian Kenneth Burr
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Passing Off, Use of Corporate Name, Likelihood of Confusion
Trade Practices Intellectual Property Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Passing Off Use of Corporate Name Likelihood of Confusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation

First Appellant

Chase AMP Bank Limited (formerly Chase AMP Limited)

Second Appellant

The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Third Appellant

Chase Corporation Limited

First Respondent

Adrian Kenneth Burr

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of the name 'Chase' by the respondent is misleading or deceptive under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether use of the name 'Chase' constitutes passing off
  3. 3 Whether the conduct contravenes ss.53 or 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The use of the corporate name 'Chase' by Chase Corporation Limited in Australia is not misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, nor does it constitute passing off, given the lack of a sufficiently common field of activity and absence of evidence of misrepresentation. Mere possible confusion or uncertainty in the minds of relevant members of the public does not suffice for a contravention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.