Sportsbet Pty Ltd v Crownbet Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1045

Sportsbet Pty Ltd v Crownbet Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1045

The court found Sportsbet had established a strong prima facie case that the respondents’ use of SPORTINGBET would likely mislead a substantial portion of consumers into confusing it with SPORTSBET or assuming an association, particularly given increased brand recognition and market dynamics since 2015. The balance...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Sportsbet Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Crownbet Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: TSG Australia Wagering Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations, Online Betting, Brand Confusion
Intellectual Property Consumer Protection Trade Marks Misleading and Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations Online Betting Brand Confusion

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportsbet Pty Ltd

Applicant

Crownbet Pty Ltd

First Respondent

TSG Australia Wagering Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents’ proposed use of the name SPORTINGBET would contravene s 18 and/or s 29(1) of the Australian Consumer Law by being misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
  2. 2 Whether Sportsbet has made out a prima facie case for interlocutory injunctive relief.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the interlocutory injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Sportsbet had established a strong prima facie case that the respondents’ use of SPORTINGBET would likely mislead a substantial portion of consumers into confusing it with SPORTSBET or assuming an association, particularly given increased brand recognition and market dynamics since 2015. The balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction, as harm to Sportsbet absent relief would be difficult to quantify and significant, while respondents could adopt alternate brands and would be protected by an undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Respondents are restrained from offering betting or wagering services using the name SPORTINGBET pending determination of the proceeding or further order.
  • Each party’s costs of the application for interlocutory injunctive relief are costs in the cause.