Lever Bros v G Mowling and Son [1908] HCA 30

Lever Bros v G Mowling and Son [1908] HCA 30

The respondents' trade mark was not calculated to deceive within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions and was sufficiently distinctive; furthermore, the Supreme Court had judicial jurisdiction from which an appeal lay to the High Court.

Parties
Appellants; Opponents: Lever Bros.; Respondents; Applicants: G. Mowling & Son
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Likelihood of Deception, Distinctiveness of Trade Marks, Appeal Jurisdiction
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Deception Distinctiveness of Trade Marks Appeal Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lever Bros.

Appellants; Opponents

G. Mowling & Son

Respondents; Applicants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reference to the Supreme Court was authorized and whether an appeal lies to the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the trade mark in question was calculated to deceive under Trade Marks Act 1890 (No. 2) (Vict.), secs. 16(2) and 17
  3. 3 Whether the mark was distinctive

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' trade mark was not calculated to deceive within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions and was sufficiently distinctive; furthermore, the Supreme Court had judicial jurisdiction from which an appeal lay to the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs