Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty LtdCitation:[2023] HCA 8Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson JJDate:15 Mar 2023Case Number:S79/2022, S80/2022Read more

The court held that 'instant Botox® alternative' and PROTOX were not used as trade marks and were not deceptively similar to the BOTOX defensive trade mark. Reputation was not relevant to deceptive similarity. The alleged representation about the wrinkle reducing effects of Inhibox was not conveyed.

Parties: Applicant: Unknown Applicant; Respondent: Unknown Respondent
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 March 2023
Procedural Posture: Intellectual Property / Consumer Law / Judgment
Outcome: Claims dismissed
Legal Topics: Trade Mark Infringement, Deceptive Similarity, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations

Intellectual Property Consumer Law Trade Mark Infringement Deceptive Similarity Misleading or Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations

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

Parties

Unknown Applicant

Applicant

Unknown Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Consumer Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether 'instant Botox® alternative' was used as a trade mark
2 Whether 'instant Botox® alternative' and PROTOX are deceptively similar to the BOTOX defensive trade mark
3 Whether reputation is relevant to deceptive similarity

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed