Case: ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159 ; (1992) 33 FCR 302
Outcome: applied
In this area of the law the courts constantly endeavour to keep pace with the progress of trade by adapting fundamental doctrines to advancing methods and changing circumstances: Angelides v James Stedman Hendersons Sweets Ltd [1927] HCA 34 ; (1927) 40 CLR 43 at 59-60 per Isaacs ACJ; ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159 ; (1992) 33 FCR 302 at 356 per Gummow J; Campomar 202 CLR at 88 [109]. 55 Their Lordships went on, through Lord Scarman, to say that competition had to remain free and was safeguarded by the necessity for the plaintiff to prove that he has built up an intangible property right which he seeks to protect in the action: Cadbury Schweppes [1980] 2 NSWLR at 858 [23]: see too Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [No 2] [1984] HCA 73 ; (1984) 156 CLR 414 at 445 per Deane J (with whom Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ agreed). In ConAgra 33 FCR at 356 Gummow J said: But it is to be observed that the law of passing off contains sufficient nooks and crannies to make it difficult to formulate any satisfactory definition in short form. However, "the classical trinity" does serve to emphasise three core concepts in this area of the law. This appeal is concerned with all of them, namely, the geographical requirements for a sufficient reputation, the nature of the interest damaged, and the significance of fraud in the making of the misrepresentation. 57 Lord Parker identified the basis of a passing off action as a false representation by the defendant that his goods were the plaintiff's. In Campomar 202 CLR at 88-89 at [109]-[110] the High Court recognised that the range of the defendant's conduct which could constitute passing off included inducing consumers to believe that the defendant's goods or services had an association, quality or endorsement which belonged, or would belong, to the goods or services of or associated with the plaintiff. As Lord Parker recognised, relevantly here, the point to be decided is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the use by the defendant in connection with the goods of the get-up in question, impliedly represents the defendant's goods to be goods of the plaintiff or associated with the plaintiff, whether generally or in respect of a particular class or quality. In other words, the question is whether the defendant's use of the get-up is calculated to deceive. He pointed out that it would be impossible to enumerate or classify all the possible ways in which a man may make the false representation relied on: Spalding 84 LJ Ch at 450; see too Vieright Pty Ltd v Myer Stores Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 361 at 369-370 per Beaumont, Branson and Lindgren JJ; ConAgra 33 FCR at 356 per Gummow J. 71 Mere proof of the fact that a person has deliberately copied the name or get-up of a trade rival does not of itself establish a contravention of s 52 or a passing off or goods or services: Apand Pty Ltd v The Kettle Chip Co Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 474 at 496 per Lockhart, Gummow and Lee JJ. In ConAgra 33 FCR at 374, Gummow J said "[d]eliberate copying does not necessarily indicate fraud. A notable example is provided by Cadbury Schweppes [[1980] 2 NSWLR 851]". And, Lockhart J said ( ConAgra 33 FCR at 345: French J at 377 agreed with both Lockhart J and Gummow J): But deliberate copying of the plaintiff's goods does not always evidence an intention to deceive; it may indicate nothing more than realisation that the plaintiff has a useful idea which the defendant can turn to his own advantage, though not intending to pass off his goods as those of the plaintiff.