Case: Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window &amp; General Cleaners Ltd (1946) 63 RPC 39
Outcome: followed
However, their Honours concluded that in the end it was still a question of fact for the court to determine whether, indeed, there had been established a reasonable probability of deception or confusion from the use, in that case, of a trademark or device. They held that the main issue in the case was a question which was never susceptible of much discussion. They said ( Australian Woollen Mills 58 CLR at 659; see too Burford &amp; Sons 8 CLR at 220 per O'Connor J; Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 30 ; (2002) 55 IPR 354 at 389 [121] per Weinberg and Dowsett JJ, Branson J agreeing; Office Cleaning Services Ltd v Westminster Window &amp; General Cleaners Ltd (1946) 63 RPC 39 at 40 per Lord Simonds, with whom Lords Wright, Porter and Goddard agreed): It depends on a combination of visual impression and judicial estimation of the effect likely to be produced in the course of the ordinary conduct of affairs. 72 In Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Limited [2007] FCAFC 70 ; (2007) 159 FCR 397 at 418-419 [96] - [99] Black CJ, Emmett and Middleton JJ observed that the principles relating to passing off do not necessarily require a plaintiff to establish an exclusive reputation in relation to the use of a particular colour, in that case, purple. They said that the question was whether the plaintiff could establish facts that demonstrate that a particular use by the defendant of the colour was likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing that there was relevant connection between the defendant and the plaintiff or their respective products: Darrell Lea 159 FCR at 418 [96]; see too Office Cleaning 63 RPC at 42 per Lord Simonds. They observed that both in the context of Pt V of the Trade Practices Act and the common law tort of passing off, trade indicia other than names and logos can become associated with a particular trader, so that use by another trader could give rise to misleading or deceptive conduct or passing off. They said ( Darrell Lea 159 FCR at 418 [97]): If particular branding elements used by a trader have been identified in a special way with that trader in the minds of the members of the public, there may be misleading or deceptive conduct by reason of the appropriation of those particular branding elements by another trader. 106 Ricegrowers has not demonstrated that Real Foods' use of its packaging was calculated or likely to lead the ordinary reasonable consumer to believe that any of the three corn thin flavoured corn cakes were made by or in some way associated with Ricegrowers or its SunRice products (the sour cream and chives, or sea salt and balsamic vinegar thin flavoured rice cakes or the nacho cheese flavoured corn cake): Darrell Lea 159 FCR at 418-419 [96]-[99]; Office Cleaning 63 RPC at 42. The ordinary reasonable consumer would not believe that, to the extent that the packaging of the flavoured Real Foods products was similar, any of those packages emanated from or were in any way associated with Ricegrowers or SunRice: Campomar 202 CLR at 88-89 [109]-[110]; Cadbury Schweppes [1980] 2 NSWLR at 858 [22]; Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 506F-G; Payton 17 RPC at 51; see too Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 9) [2008] FCA 470 at [88] per Heerey J. 108 There is no reason to conclude that Ricegrowers is entitled to a monopoly on colours and flow packs for the packaging of corn or rice cakes with the features of those on Real Foods' packaging complained of. Here, Real Foods adopted colours and printed flow pack packaging which were in common use in the savoury biscuits category. Just because Ricegrowers was first to use these in the corn cake and rice cake subcategories did not entitle it to a monopoly of their use. Real Foods took sufficient steps, in all the circumstances, to distinguish its flavoured "Corn Thins" from the three conflicting products of SunRice: cp: Campomar 202 CLR at 84 [99]; Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Limited v Puxu Pty Limited [1982] HCA 44 ; (1981) 149 CLR 191 at 200 per Gibbs CJ; Office Cleaning 63 RPC at 43. The ordinary reasonable consumer was used to seeing the corn and rice cakes products of the parties displayed standing up in the shelves. The new packaging for the new "Corn Thins" was presented as part of the family or group of products distinct from the SunRice family or group. When one of the "Corn Thins" flavoured corn cakes varieties was placed within the SunRice product display, as is shown in some photographs in evidence, they look noticeably out of place on the shelves and in the wrong "family" or group. I am of opinion that the ordinary reasonable consumer would notice this and realise the products were not related, even if they wondered why the supermarket had displayed them in this way: Hornsby Building Information Centre 140 CLR at 229; Cadbury Schweppes [1980] 2 NSWLR at 858 [21].