Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd v Smithkline Beecham Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 881

Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd v Smithkline Beecham Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 881

Although there is a serious question to be tried regarding whether the statements 'No peroxide' and 'No bleaches' on MWT packaging and advertisements convey an implication that peroxide is unsafe and thus that CBSP is harmful, the applicant's case is not strong. The balance of convenience favours the respondents, given the substantial commercial effect and lack of a sufficiently compelling case for an injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Pty Limited; First Respondent: SmithKline Beecham Holdings (Australia) Pty Limited; Second Respondent: SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Injunctive Relief, Comparative Advertising, Product Packaging, Balance of Convenience
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Injunctive Relief Comparative Advertising Product Packaging 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colgate-Palmolive Pty Limited

Applicant

SmithKline Beecham Holdings (Australia) Pty Limited

First Respondent

SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' advertising and packaging of Macleans Whitening Toothpaste is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of ss 52, 53(a), 53(c), and 55 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted based on the seriousness of the question to be tried and the balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is a serious question to be tried regarding whether the statements 'No peroxide' and 'No bleaches' on MWT packaging and advertisements convey an implication that peroxide is unsafe and thus that CBSP is harmful, the applicant's case is not strong. The balance of convenience favours the respondents, given the substantial commercial effect and lack of a sufficiently compelling case for an injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion for interlocutory injunctions is dismissed.