Case: Reckitt &amp; Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491
Outcome: followed
Much later the House of Lords held that a plaintiff who sold lemon juice in a container resembling a natural lemon with a green triangular label bearing the word "Jif" was entitled in an action for passing off to protect the get-up and packaging of the lemon shape because over the years a secondary meaning had been created associating the plaintiff's get-up with goods manufactured by it: Reckitt &amp; Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491 at 506F-G per Lord Oliver of Aylmerton who said: Here the mere fact that he has previously been the only trader dealing in goods of that type and so described may lead members of the public to believe that all such goods must emanate from him simply because they know of no other. To succeed in such a case he must demonstrate more than simply the sole use of the descriptive term. He must demonstrate that it has become so closely associated with his goods as to acquire the secondary meaning not simply of goods of that description but specifically of goods of which he and he alone is the source. 63 Thus, the mere fact that a defendant makes some distinction on the packaging from similar packaging used by or copied from the plaintiff may or may not be sufficient to distinguish the goods from those of or associated with the plaintiff: Burford &amp; Sons [1909] HCA 83 ; 8 CLR 212 ; Payton 17 RPC at 56; affirmed [1901] AC 308 ; Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 507H-508B per Lord Oliver. Lord Oliver said that it was important in such a case for the defendant to see that the goods could really be distinguished from those of or associated with the plaintiff. But, he said the question was how far the defendants' trademark bears such a resemblance to that of the plaintiff, as to be calculated to deceive incautious purchasers: Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 509B citing Lord Kingsdown in Leather Cloth Co Ltd v American Leather Cloth Co Ltd [1865] EngR 199 ; (1865) 11 H L Cas 523 at 539. 64 In Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 514H-515C Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said that a trader could only claim protection for such capricious additions to a commonly used container as distinguished his use of that container from the use of other traders. Thus, the trader may prevent a rival copying the label on boxes or perhaps the distinctive combination of colours on tins but cannot stop the rival using ordinary boxes or tins simply because they happen to be the same shape and size as his. He said that it was not the shape and size of the container which identified the product of a particular trader to the public, but the capricious additions to it by way of distinctive labelling or a combination of colour or graphic design. He referred to JB Williams Company v H Bronnley &amp; Co Limited (1909) 26 RPC 765 at 771 per Cozens-Hardy MR and at 774 per Farwell LJ. In that case, at 773, Fletcher Moulton LJ had said there that the get-up of an article meant a capricious addition to the article itself, such as the colour or shape or wrapper or anything of that kind: see too Doctor Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 281 at 369 [339] per Goldberg J; and Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 515C-D per Lord Jauncey. 66 So, in a claim alleging that a contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act has occurred, the court considers the effect on an ordinary reasonable shopper by conduct involving the making of a representation to the class of retail consumers shopping in a supermarket displaying a trader's packaged goods on its shelves: Campomar 202 CLR at 84-85 [101]-[103]. The court attributes particular characteristics to this shopper. In actions for passing off a similar test applies in assessing whether a representation was made and, if so, what its effect was. So, in Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 509C-D Lord Oliver said that this is done against the background of the type of market in which the goods are sold, the manner in which they are sold, and the habits and characteristics of purchasers in that market: see too Campomar 202 CLR at 84 [100]. 81 The parties agreed that the ordinary reasonable consumer ( Campomar 202 CLR at 84-85 [101]-[103]: Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 509C-D) was described accurately in the packaging brief prepared by Ms Anderson as having the following demographic makeup, namely: the ordinary reasonable consumer of the parties' rice and corn cake products was a female aged between 30 and 49 years. Most would have middle or older families (i.e. school age children or teenagers) but some would not have children; some would be in households with either one or two income earners. She would be working either full-time or part-time, be married and educated. The ordinary reasonable consumer would be purchasing these products as snack foods for herself and her entire family unit. She would be health conscious and would want to set a good example for her family by her healthy eating. She also would be conscious of her weight and would feel guilty when snacking. She would not want to have foods that were full of fat or sugar. Nor would she want to give her children or teenagers such foods or set a bad example for them. 85 The ordinary reasonable consumer was used to seeing the two distinct families of goods presented on the supermarket shelves in this way: Borden [1990] 1 WLR at 509C-D; Campomar 202 CLR at 84-85 [100]-[103]. 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.