Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 609

Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 609

The Court held that the respondents' visible and obvious use of ‘My Thredbo’ and related phrases in certain URLs and online content constituted misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations, contrary to s 18(1) and ss 29(1)(g), (h) of the Australian Consumer Law. The restraining orders and declarations appropriately included the limitation that such conduct must be apparent to consumers, as there was no finding about invisible uses. Costs were apportioned, with applicants to pay 85% of respondents' costs due to limited success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment (orders and Costs)
Outcome
Declarations and injunctions granted with limitations as to apparent use; applicants to pay 85% of respondents' costs; proceedings otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'costs Orders']
['competition and Consumer Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'costs Orders']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment (orders and Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law by using certain phrases and website links.' 'Whether the respondents made false or misleading representations contrary to ss 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether restraint orders should include a limitation regarding apparent use to consumers.' 'How the costs of proceedings should be apportioned between the parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondents' visible and obvious use of ‘My Thredbo’ and related phrases in certain URLs and online content constituted misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations, contrary to s 18(1) and ss 29(1)(g), (h) of the Australian Consumer Law. The restraining orders and declarations appropriately included the limitation that such conduct must be apparent to consumers, as there was no finding about invisible uses. Costs were apportioned, with applicants to pay 85% of respondents' costs due to limited success.

Court Disposition

Declarations and injunctions granted with limitations as to apparent use; applicants to pay 85% of respondents' costs; proceedings otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Respondents restrained from using specified phrases in URLs and content in a way apparent to consumers.' 'Proceedings otherwise dismissed.' "Applicants to pay 85% of respondents' costs."]