Strange, S. (SLSA) & Sydney SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd v. Careflight Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 54

Strange, S. (SLSA) & Sydney SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd v. Careflight Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 54

There is a strongly arguable case that the use of the names 'Bridge to Breakers' or 'Harbour to Manly' in association with a footrace event by the respondents would be misleading, given their historic association with the applicants. The balance of convenience favours a limited interlocutory injunction restraining sponsorship and promotion under these names pending final determination.

Parties
First Applicant: Stephen Robert Strange on behalf of the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, Sydney Branch; Second Applicant: Sydney SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Limited; First Respondent: Careflight Limited; Second Respondent: Peter MacCormick; Third Respondent: Petronella Ryan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in limited terms pending final hearing
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Interlocutory Injunctions, Passing Off
Competition Law Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Interlocutory Injunctions Passing Off

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Robert Strange on behalf of the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, Sydney Branch

First Applicant

Sydney SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Careflight Limited

First Respondent

Peter MacCormick

Second Respondent

Petronella Ryan

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of the names 'Bridge to Breakers' or 'Harbour to Manly' for a footrace event by respondents would constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrict sponsorship and promotion pending the final hearing

Ratio Decidendi

There is a strongly arguable case that the use of the names 'Bridge to Breakers' or 'Harbour to Manly' in association with a footrace event by the respondents would be misleading, given their historic association with the applicants. The balance of convenience favours a limited interlocutory injunction restraining sponsorship and promotion under these names pending final determination.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in limited terms pending final hearing

Orders

  • The first respondent, its servants and agents, and the second and third respondents be restrained pending further order from seeking sponsorship of, or advertising or promoting to the public, any footrace or race event in New South Wales under or in association with the names 'Bridge to Breakers' and/or 'Harbour to...
  • Liberty to apply on forty-eight (48) hours' notice for vacation or variation of this order.