Specsavers Pty Ltd v Buyinvite Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 230

Specsavers Pty Ltd v Buyinvite Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 230

The first respondent's advertisement was misleading and deceptive because it falsely implied it could supply Alex Perry branded glasses, contrary to the applicant's exclusive rights. The first respondent failed to appear and, being in default, the applicant was granted final injunctive relief to restrain further contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.

Parties
Applicant: Specsavers Pty Ltd (ACN 097 147 932); First Respondent: Buyinvite Pty Ltd (ACN 134 648 589); Second Respondent: Stephen Patrick Coles
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Ex Parte Application for Injunctive Relief / Interim and Final Injunction Orders
Outcome
Final injunctive relief granted against first respondent; substituted service ordered for second respondent; costs awarded to applicant; proceeding adjourned for directions.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Injunctive Relief, Substituted Service, Google Advertising
Consumer Law Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Injunctive Relief Substituted Service Google Advertising

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Specsavers Pty Ltd (ACN 097 147 932)

Applicant

Buyinvite Pty Ltd (ACN 134 648 589)

First Respondent

Stephen Patrick Coles

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Ex Parte Application for Injunctive Relief / Interim and Final Injunction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' online advertisements constituted misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive relief against the respondents to restrain such conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's advertisement was misleading and deceptive because it falsely implied it could supply Alex Perry branded glasses, contrary to the applicant's exclusive rights. The first respondent failed to appear and, being in default, the applicant was granted final injunctive relief to restrain further contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.

Court Disposition

Final injunctive relief granted against first respondent; substituted service ordered for second respondent; costs awarded to applicant; proceeding adjourned for directions.

Orders

  • Grant of leave to file specified affidavits
  • Substituted service of application and affidavits by email on second respondent