Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 664

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 664

Samsung did not establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory relief. The brightness advertisement was likely to be understood as a graphic comparison of brightness and any impression that conventional 3D televisions had to be viewed in darkness would likely be dispelled at point of sale. The weight advertisement was unlikely to be misleading because LG's glasses were perceptibly lighter than Samsung's. The batteries advertisement may convey that conventional glasses required frequent recharging, but the evidence did not establish likely misleading effect or damage sufficient to justify an injunction. The website material...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S 234 of the Australian Consumer Law Pending Application for Permanent Injunction Under S 232 / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused.
Legal Topics
['interim Injunctions' 'comparative Advertising' 'television Advertisements' 'ordinary Reasonable Viewer' '3 D Televisions']
['trade Practices' 'australian Consumer Law' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['interim Injunctions' 'comparative Advertising' 'television Advertisements' 'ordinary Reasonable Viewer' '3 D Televisions']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S 234 of the Australian Consumer Law Pending Application for Permanent Injunction Under S 232 / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether LG's advertisements conveyed representations that were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law." 'Whether Samsung established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for interlocutory injunctive relief.' "Whether the balance of convenience favoured continuation of ex parte injunctions restraining publication of LG's advertisements." "Whether representations on LG's website and YouTube material warranted interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

Samsung did not establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory relief. The brightness advertisement was likely to be understood as a graphic comparison of brightness and any impression that conventional 3D televisions had to be viewed in darkness would likely be dispelled at point of sale. The weight advertisement was unlikely to be misleading because LG's glasses were perceptibly lighter than Samsung's. The batteries advertisement may convey that conventional glasses required frequent recharging, but the evidence did not establish likely misleading effect or damage sufficient to justify an injunction. The website material...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief be refused.' "The applicant pay 80% of the respondent's costs in respect of the application for interlocutory relief heard today." 'The applicant by its senior counsel gives to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages, and thereupon the respondent, by its senior...