Malleys Ltd v Whirlpool Aust Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 132
The applicant established a strong prima facie case that the first respondent's use of "Whirlpool" in its corporate name, advertisements and proposed telephone directory entries conveyed to members of the public that it was connected or affiliated with, or authorised by, the manufacturer or former Australian manufacturer of Whirlpool appliances. The balance of convenience and the public interest favoured restraining that conduct, and the second respondent was also liable to restraint as a person knowingly concerned in the alleged contraventions. The proceeding was ultimately disposed of by consent orders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Trade Practices Consumer Protection Proceeding Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and False Representations Concerning Whirlpool Branded Products / Motion for Interlocutory Injunctions; Final Consent Orders Made Disposing of the Proceeding
- Outcome
- Final orders made by consent disposing of the proceeding, including restraints on the first and second respondents, restraints on the third respondent concerning directory publication, name and business name changes, and costs against the first and second respondents.
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations of Affiliation, Sponsorship or Approval' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'telephone Directory Entries and Advertising' 'use of Corporate and Business Names']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Proceeding Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and False Representations Concerning Whirlpool Branded Products / Motion for Interlocutory Injunctions; Final Consent Orders Made Disposing of the Proceeding
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the first respondent\'s advertisements, telephone directory entries, corporate name and business names using the word "Whirlpool" conveyed that it was affiliated or connected with, or authorised by, Whirlpool Corporation, the applicant, Simpson Limited or Simpson Appliance Service Limited.' 'Whether the applicant established a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory injunctive relief.' 'Whether the second respondent should be restrained as a person knowingly concerned in the alleged contraventions.']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant established a strong prima facie case that the first respondent's use of "Whirlpool" in its corporate name, advertisements and proposed telephone directory entries conveyed to members of the public that it was connected or affiliated with, or authorised by, the manufacturer or former Australian manufacturer of Whirlpool appliances. The balance of convenience and the public interest favoured restraining that conduct, and the second respondent was also liable to restraint as a person knowingly concerned in the alleged contraventions. The proceeding was ultimately disposed of by consent orders.
Court Disposition
Final orders made by consent disposing of the proceeding, including restraints on the first and second respondents, restraints on the third respondent concerning directory publication, name and business name changes, and costs against the first and second respondents.
Orders
- ['The first and second respondents were restrained from using in trade or commerce the combination of the word "Whirlpool" and the logo appearing above that word in the form in annexure "A" to the Order, or similar combinations, logos or documents or things bearing such combinations.' 'The first and second...
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