TEC & TOMAS (Australia) Pty Ltd v Matsumiya Computer Company Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 13

TEC & TOMAS (Australia) Pty Ltd v Matsumiya Computer Company Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 13

The use and threatened use of the names 'Seiko Computers', 'Seikosha', and misleading statements by the first, second, fourth, and fifth respondents created an erroneous impression of business connection with the applicant and the Hattori Seiko group. This constitutes misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act. Registration of business names does not provide a defence to such conduct; prior deficiencies in the applicant's conduct do not bar injunctive relief due to the public interest involved.

Parties
Applicant: TEC & TOMAS (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED; First Respondent: MATSUMIYA COMPUTER COMPANY PTY. LIMITED; Second Respondent: TRANSNATIONAL DATA CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED; Third Respondent: TOKYO DATA SYSTEMS PTY. LIMITED; Fourth Respondent: CELEBRITY COMMUNICATIONS PTY. LIMITED; Fifth Respondent: ANTHONY FRANCIS FOOT
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 1984
Procedural Posture
Injunctive Relief / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Injunctive relief granted; costs awarded to applicant (except third respondent); liberty to apply reserved as to third respondent.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Business Name Misuse, Injunctive Relief, Defence of Applicant's Misconduct
Trade Practices Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Business Name Misuse Injunctive Relief Defence of Applicant's Misconduct

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEC & TOMAS (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED

Applicant

MATSUMIYA COMPUTER COMPANY PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

TRANSNATIONAL DATA CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

TOKYO DATA SYSTEMS PTY. LIMITED

Third Respondent

CELEBRITY COMMUNICATIONS PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

ANTHONY FRANCIS FOOT

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunctive Relief / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act by using the names 'Seiko Computers' and 'Seikosha' and making certain statements about their business connection to Hattori Seiko Company Limited and specific computer models.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents contravened s.53(d) of the Trade Practices Act by representing they had sponsorship, approval or affiliation with Hattori Seiko group.
  3. 3 Whether registration of business names under state law provides a defence to conduct alleged to be misleading or deceptive.

Ratio Decidendi

The use and threatened use of the names 'Seiko Computers', 'Seikosha', and misleading statements by the first, second, fourth, and fifth respondents created an erroneous impression of business connection with the applicant and the Hattori Seiko group. This constitutes misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act. Registration of business names does not provide a defence to such conduct; prior deficiencies in the applicant's conduct do not bar injunctive relief due to the public interest involved.

Court Disposition

Injunctive relief granted; costs awarded to applicant (except third respondent); liberty to apply reserved as to third respondent.

Orders

  • First and second respondents (and their agents) restrained from misleading or deceptive conduct by using 'Seiko Computers' or 'Seikosha' in any business offering for sale computers or computer equipment not those of the applicant or Hattori Seiko Company Limited.
  • First, second, fourth, and fifth respondents (and their agents) restrained from making statements or implications of business or trade connection with the Hattori Seiko group.