Fido Dido Inc. & Anor v. Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 285

Fido Dido Inc. & Anor v. Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 285

Given the evidence before the Court at this interlocutory stage, including expert testimony and consumer affidavits, there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the respondents' garments amount to passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct; however, the balance of convenience favours dissolving the existing injunction and refusing interlocutory relief, as the potential harm to respondents exceeds that faced by applicants and undertakings as to keeping accounts are in place.

Parties
First Applicant: Fido Dido Inc.; Second Applicant: United Feature Syndicate; First Respondent: Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Gazal Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Decision on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Injunctions previously granted are dissolved. Interlocutory relief refused to both applicants and respondents. Serious question to be tried found for both claim and cross-claim. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Injunctive Relief, Trade Mark Law, Character Merchandising
Intellectual Property Trade Practices Passing Off Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Injunctive Relief Trade Mark Law Character Merchandising

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fido Dido Inc.

First Applicant

United Feature Syndicate

Second Applicant

Venture Stores (Retailers) Pty. Limited

First Respondent

Gazal Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Decision on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' garments constitute passing off as the applicants' Fido Dido range
  2. 2 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under sections 52, 53(c) and (d) of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted or dissolved

Ratio Decidendi

Given the evidence before the Court at this interlocutory stage, including expert testimony and consumer affidavits, there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the respondents' garments amount to passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct; however, the balance of convenience favours dissolving the existing injunction and refusing interlocutory relief, as the potential harm to respondents exceeds that faced by applicants and undertakings as to keeping accounts are in place.

Court Disposition

Injunctions previously granted are dissolved. Interlocutory relief refused to both applicants and respondents. Serious question to be tried found for both claim and cross-claim. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The injunctions previously granted are dissolved.
  • The question of costs is reserved.