Turner v General Motors (Australia) Pty Ltd [1929] HCA 22

Turner v General Motors (Australia) Pty Ltd [1929] HCA 22

The defendants' use of the trade names constituted passing off by representing their business as connected with or part of the plaintiff, thus misappropriating the plaintiff’s business reputation. Delay in initiating proceedings was not acquiescence or laches, and the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief, subject to modifying the injunction to permit use if the business was clearly distinguished from the plaintiff's.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Ernest Sidwell Turner and others; Respondent; Plaintiff: General Motors (Australia) Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Decree varied.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Names, Business Reputation, Injunction, Laches, Acquiescence
Intellectual Property Equity Commercial Law Passing Off Trade Names Business Reputation Injunction Laches +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Sidwell Turner and others

Appellants; Defendants

General Motors (Australia) Proprietary Limited

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' use of a trade name similar to the plaintiff's amounted to passing off and misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether laches or acquiescence bars relief
  3. 3 Appropriate form of injunction in passing off cases

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' use of the trade names constituted passing off by representing their business as connected with or part of the plaintiff, thus misappropriating the plaintiff’s business reputation. Delay in initiating proceedings was not acquiescence or laches, and the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief, subject to modifying the injunction to permit use if the business was clearly distinguished from the plaintiff's.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Decree varied.

Orders

  • Decree varied by omitting the requirement to add 'this business has no connection with General Motors (Australia) Proprietary Limited' in text as large as 'General Motor' or 'General Motors', and inserting 'without clearly distinguishing such business from the business carried on by General Motors (Australia)...
  • Appellants to pay costs.