Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation v. Chase Corporation Ltd [1985] FCA 640

Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation v. Chase Corporation Ltd [1985] FCA 640

There was no relevant misrepresentation or likelihood of misleading or deceptive conduct by the first respondent. The applicant and respondent operated in different fields, had distinguishable market reputations, and there was insufficient evidence that use of 'Chase' in Australia would mislead the relevant public or constitute passing off.

Parties
First Applicant: Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation; Second Applicant: Chase AMP Bank Limited; Third Applicant: Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.; First Respondent: Chase Corporation Limited; Second Respondent: Adrian Kenneth Burr
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil (trade Practices, Passing Off) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Passing Off, False Representation, Trade Practices Act 1974 Ss.52, 53, 53 a
Trade Practices Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Passing Off False Representation Trade Practices Act 1974 Ss.52, 53, 53 a

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation

First Applicant

Chase AMP Bank Limited

Second Applicant

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Third Applicant

Chase Corporation Limited

First Respondent

Adrian Kenneth Burr

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (trade Practices, Passing Off) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of the name 'Chase' by the first respondent in Australia is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the respondents made false representations as to sponsorship, approval, affiliation, or standard under ss.53 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the respondents passed off their business as that of the applicants

Ratio Decidendi

There was no relevant misrepresentation or likelihood of misleading or deceptive conduct by the first respondent. The applicant and respondent operated in different fields, had distinguishable market reputations, and there was insufficient evidence that use of 'Chase' in Australia would mislead the relevant public or constitute passing off.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay to the respondents their costs of these proceedings; such costs not to include the costs incurred, or ordered to be paid, by them in connection with a subpoena issued by the respondents requiring the production of certain documents by McKinsey & Co.Inc.