Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 8) [2008] FCA 470
The evidence, including that of Cadbury's experts, did not establish that Darrell Lea had passed off its business or products as those of Cadbury, nor that its use of purple had resulted or would result in a reasonable consumer being misled or deceived within the meaning of ss 52 or 53(c) and (d) of the Trade...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Further Hearing on Remitter After Full Court Appeal; Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'use of Colour in Branding' 'expert Evidence' 'rule in Browne V Dunn' 'brand Reputation']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Further Hearing on Remitter After Full Court Appeal; Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether Darrell Lea's use of purple in chocolate confectionery amounts to passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act"]
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence, including that of Cadbury's experts, did not establish that Darrell Lea had passed off its business or products as those of Cadbury, nor that its use of purple had resulted or would result in a reasonable consumer being misled or deceived within the meaning of ss 52 or 53(c) and (d) of the Trade Practices Act; the application was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' 'Questions of costs are adjourned to a date to be fixed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment