Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1228

Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1228

Neither party established the factual correctness of their advertising claims regarding shaving closeness; therefore, no interlocutory injunction should be granted against either party, especially as both preferred to continue their advertising pending determination of their dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory injunctions dismissed
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'advertising Claims' 'interlocutory Injunction']
['competition Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'advertising Claims' 'interlocutory Injunction']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether advertising claims made by each party concerning shaving closeness constitute misleading or deceptive conduct' 'Whether the claims are statements of fact or mere puffery' 'Whether there is justification for granting interlocutory injunctions against either party']

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party established the factual correctness of their advertising claims regarding shaving closeness; therefore, no interlocutory injunction should be granted against either party, especially as both preferred to continue their advertising pending determination of their dispute.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory injunctions dismissed

Orders

  • ['The applications for interlocutory injunctions be dismissed.' 'The costs of the applications be costs in the principal proceeding.']