Unilever PLC v Bless Point Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 551

Unilever PLC v Bless Point Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 551

There is a serious question to be tried regarding liability of the first and second respondents for trade mark infringement, passing off, and misleading conduct. The goods manufactured and sold by them are counterfeit and not authorised, resulting in risk to the applicant's brand and to consumers. Interlocutory injunction was justified to restrain ongoing wrongful conduct and prevent further harm until trial.

Parties
First Applicant: Unilever PLC; Second Applicant: Unilever Australia Ltd; First Respondent: Bless Point Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Lukas Thamin; Third Respondent: K Young Trading Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Raymond Dai
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Grant of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted against first and second respondents
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Intellectual Property Law Consumer Protection Law Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unilever PLC

First Applicant

Unilever Australia Ltd

Second Applicant

Bless Point Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Lukas Thamin

Second Respondent

K Young Trading Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Raymond Dai

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Grant of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents infringed the 'OMO' trade mark through manufacturing, importing, and selling counterfeit washing powder
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have engaged in passing off and contravened section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is justified

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried regarding liability of the first and second respondents for trade mark infringement, passing off, and misleading conduct. The goods manufactured and sold by them are counterfeit and not authorised, resulting in risk to the applicant's brand and to consumers. Interlocutory injunction was justified to restrain ongoing wrongful conduct and prevent further harm until trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted against first and second respondents

Orders

  • Leave granted to file affidavit of Susan Gaye O'Connor sworn 5 April 2007
  • Restraints placed on first and second respondents from manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, distributing, destroying, or disposing of 'OMO' counterfeit goods except as directed