W H Burford and Sons Ltd v G Mowling and Son [1909] HCA 83

W H Burford and Sons Ltd v G Mowling and Son [1909] HCA 83

The appeal was dismissed because although the defendants deliberately adopted similar packaging, they had sufficiently distinguished their soap by clearly marking it with their own brand in large type, so that no reasonably intelligent customer using ordinary care and eyesight could be deceived. No monopoly exists in the shape, size, or colour of the packaging, and there was insufficient evidence of actual or likely deception to call for a case to answer.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: W. H. Burford & Sons Ltd.; Respondent; Defendant: G. Mowling & Son
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Trial Judgment to Full Court of High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Injury, Trade Marks, Get Up of Goods, Misrepresentation
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Passing Off Trade Injury Trade Marks Get Up of Goods Misrepresentation

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. H. Burford & Sons Ltd.

Appellant; Plaintiff

G. Mowling & Son

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Trial Judgment to Full Court of High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' packaging of their soap in cartons similar in shape, size, and colour to the plaintiffs' packaging constitutes passing off by deception or misrepresentation.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient distinction was made on the defendants' packaging to prevent confusion with the plaintiffs' goods.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because although the defendants deliberately adopted similar packaging, they had sufficiently distinguished their soap by clearly marking it with their own brand in large type, so that no reasonably intelligent customer using ordinary care and eyesight could be deceived. No monopoly exists in the shape, size, or colour of the packaging, and there was insufficient evidence of actual or likely deception to call for a case to answer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.