8 Aug 2012
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V SPECSAVERS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED COA CA449/2011
- Citation
- COA CA449/2011
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Summary judgment was wrongly granted because there were substantial and arguable questions of fact and impression—including credible expert evidence—that the comparative advertisements could mislead reasonable consumers by prominence and anchoring of headline prices and by insufficiently prominent qualifying material; those issues required trial and entitled Luxottica to have summary judgment set aside.