Case: Cat Media Pty Ltd v Opti-Healthcare Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 133 at [55]
Outcome: cited
Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 (31 March 2006) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Court of Australia You are here: &nbsp; AustLII &gt;&gt; Databases &gt;&gt; Federal Court of Australia &gt;&gt; 2006 &gt;&gt; [2006] FCA 363 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ Help ] Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 (31 March 2006) Last Updated: 7 April 2006 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 EVIDENCE opinion evidence as to likely consumer behaviour excluded not outside the knowledge and experience of a trier of fact evidence of opinion as to ordinary human nature not admissible alternatively evidence would be excluded on discretionary grounds Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79 , 135 Makita Australia Pty Ltd v Sprowles Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 305 ; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 at [85] not followed Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354 at [16] followed Neowarra v Western Australia (No 1 ) (2006) FCR 208 at [16], [21]-[27] followed Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 at [19] followed Ramsay v Watson [1961] HCA 65 ; (1961) 108 CLR 642 at 649 cited R v Turner [1975] QB 834 at 841 followed Murphy v The Queen [1989] HCA 28 ; (1989) 167 CLR 94 at 111 followed Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371 at 382 followed Velevski v The Queen [2002] HCA 4 ; (2002) 187 ALR 233 cited Dalgety Spillers Foods Ltd v Food Brokers Ltd [1994] FSR 504 at 527 cited Symonds Cider &amp; English Wine Company Ltd v Showerings (Ireland) Ltd [1997] 1 IEHC 1 at [20] cited Transport Publishing Co Pty Ltd v The Literature Board of Review [1956] HCA 73 ; (1956) 99 CLR 111 at 119 followed Cat Media Pty Ltd v Opti-Healthcare Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 133 at [55] cited Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd [2004] FCAFC 247 ; (2004) 139 FCR 215 at [21] cited Ligertwood, Australian Evidence , 4 th Edition, 2004 at 494 Heydon, Cross on Evidence , 7 th Australian Edition, 2004 at 930 CADBURY SCHWEPPES PTY LTD v DARRELL LEA CHOCOLATE SHOPS PTY LTD NO. VID 555 OF 2005 HEEREY J 31 MARCH 2006 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 555 OF 2005 BETWEEN: CADBURY SCHWEPPES PTY LTD APPLICANT AND: DARRELL LEA CHOCOLATE SHOPS PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE OF RULING: 31 MARCH 2006 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The affidavits of Brian John Gibbs are not admitted into evidence. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules . IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 555 OF 2005 BETWEEN: CADBURY SCHWEPPES PTY LTD APPLICANT AND: DARRELL LEA CHOCOLATE SHOPS PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE: 31 MARCH 2006 PLACE: MELBOURNE RULING 1 The applicant Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (Cadbury) has brought this proceeding against the respondent Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (Darrell Lea) alleging contravention of ss 52 , 53 (c) and 53 (d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and passing off constituted by Darrell Lea's use in its chocolate confectionary business of "the colour Cadbury purple or any colour bearing a striking and obvious likeness to the colour Cadbury purple". 19 In Cat Media Pty Ltd v Opti-Healthcare Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 133 at [55] in the context of a s 52 and passing off case, Branson J, after noting that both sides had called evidence of marketing consultants which was received without objection, said "However, I consider it appropriate to record that in the particular circumstances of this case, which is concerned with the packaging of a product intended to appeal to a wide segment of the general public, I have found the expert evidence of no real assistance. This is not only because there is, as is common in cases of this kind, conflict between the evidence of the two experts. It seems to me that evidence of opinions based on market research and expert appreciation of consumer behaviour will rarely be of assistance in litigation where the Court's primary concern is with the behaviour to be expected of, and the judgments likely to be made by, ordinary (even if it might be thought, somewhat credulous) members of the community intent on making a relatively modest purchase in a conventional way. I endorse the comment of Beaumont J in Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v IPC Media Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 104 at [92] that where a claim is essentially a matter for the Court's impression, expert views which are merely `impressionistic' can be given no more than nominal weight. These observations are not intended in any way to belittle the importance of market research and expert appreciation of consumer behaviour in other types of cases and for other purposes." 23 Senior counsel for Cadbury referred to the assistance he said I could receive from Dr Gibbs' evidence and how it could be helpful. Without wishing to seem ungrateful, or disrespectful to Dr Gibbs, I think the evidence would not be helpful at all. Rather, it would create many areas of disputation with opposing experts and greatly complicate and lengthen the trial of this proceeding. The observations of Branson J in Cat Media are very much in point. 24 I rule that the affidavits of Dr Gibbs are not admissible. Were they admissible, I would exercise the discretion under s 135 to refuse to admit them. 25 Much of the factual material relied on by Dr Gibbs is not in evidence, or likely to be in evidence, or is vague, tendentious and of little weight. As acknowledged above, such matters go to weight rather than admissibility, but by the same token are relevant in considering probative value for the purposes of s 135.