Aerospatiale Societe Nationale Industrielle v. Aerospatiale Helicopters Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 176

Aerospatiale Societe Nationale Industrielle v. Aerospatiale Helicopters Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 176

The first respondent's mere retention of its name while inactive was not itself conduct in trade or commerce, and the evidence did not show misleading hawking of the name. However, the first respondent had an object of trading in aircraft and helicopters, retained a name likely to mislead if used in that field, refused undertakings sought by the applicant, and thereby was prima facie proposing to engage in conduct that would contravene s.52. Section 80(1) empowered the Court to grant appropriate interlocutory relief, including a mandatory order to procure a change of name, and the balance of convenience favoured that order because the applicant's joint venture needed the name while the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Orders Concerning Alleged Misleading Conduct Under S.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Passing Off / Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted in favour of the applicant, subject to undertakings.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' "corporate Name Resembling Another Company's Name" 'conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'proposed Contravention' 'mandatory Interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience']
['trade Practices' 'passing Off' 'company Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' "corporate Name Resembling Another Company's Name" 'conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'proposed Contravention' 'mandatory Interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Application for Interlocutory Orders Concerning Alleged Misleading Conduct Under S.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Passing Off / Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a corporation not engaged in active trading infringes s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 or commits passing off merely by being constituted under and retaining a name falsely suggestive of an association with another organisation.' 'Whether negotiations to sell or give up the entitlement to use a word in the corporate name constitute conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive.' 'Whether registration in a particular name, coupled with failure to undertake not to trade under that name, supports an injunction where the respondent is proposing to engage in misleading conduct.' "Whether an interlocutory mandatory order should be made requiring steps to change the first respondent's corporate name."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's mere retention of its name while inactive was not itself conduct in trade or commerce, and the evidence did not show misleading hawking of the name. However, the first respondent had an object of trading in aircraft and helicopters, retained a name likely to mislead if used in that field, refused undertakings sought by the applicant, and thereby was prima facie proposing to engage in conduct that would contravene s.52. Section 80(1) empowered the Court to grant appropriate interlocutory relief, including a mandatory order to procure a change of name, and the balance of convenience favoured that order because the applicant's joint venture needed the name while the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted in favour of the applicant, subject to undertakings.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages and undertaking to pay expenses incurred by the respondents in connection with the ordered name change if ultimately unsuccessful, and to do all acts necessary to enable the first respondent to assume once more its present registered name if ultimately...