Case: Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd [2000] HCA 12 ; (2000) 202 CLR 45
Outcome: applied
In Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44 ; (1982) 149 CLR 191 ( Parkdale ), Gibbs CJ at 199 in a frequently quoted passage said: Section 52 does not expressly state what persons or class of persons should be considered as the possible victims for the purpose of deciding whether conduct is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. It seems clear enough that consideration must be given to the class of consumers likely to be affected by the conduct. Although it is true, as has often been said, that ordinarily a class of consumers may include the inexperienced as well as the experienced, and the gullible as well as the astute, the section must in my opinion by regarded as contemplating the effect of the conduct on reasonable members of the class. The heavy burdens which the section creates cannot have been intended to be imposed for the benefit of persons who fail to take reasonable care of their own interests. What is reasonable will or course depend on all the circumstances. That passage was referred to with approval by the High Court (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ in Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd [2000] HCA 12 ; (2000) 202 CLR 45 ( Campomar ) at [102]-[103]. 89 In Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 ( Taco ), in the joint judgment of Deane and Fitzgerald JJ, their Honours at 200 said: In truth, of course, no conduct can mislead or deceive unless the representee labours under some erroneous assumption. Such an assumption can range from the obvious, such as a simple assumption that an express representation is worthy of credence, through the predictable, such as the common assumption in a passing-off case that goods marketed under a trade name which corresponds to the well-known trade name of goods of the same type have their origins in the manufacturer of the well-known goods, to the fanciful, such as an assumption that the mere fact that a person sells goods means that he is the manufacturer of them. The nature of the erroneous assumption which must be made before conduct can mislead or deceive will be a relevant, and sometimes decisive, factor in determining the factual question whether conduct should properly be categorized as misleading or deceptive or as likely to mislead or deceive. Again, that passage was cited with apparent approval by the High Court in Campomar at [104]. 91 Their Honours then provided certain guidance in considering and determining whether the suggested misrepresentation has been made, and is or is likely to be misleading or deceptive of the public. The first item of guidance was to identify the relevant section or sections of the public by reference to whom the question of whether conduct is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive falls to be tested. The second, having identified the relevant section of the public, was to consider the issue by reference to all who come within it, "including the astute and the gullible, the intelligent and the not so intelligent, the well educated as well as the poorly educated, men and women of various ages pursuing a variety of vocations". That quotation was adopted from the judgment of Lockhart J in Puxu Pty Ltd v Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd (1980) 31 ALR 73 at 93. In Campomar , the High Court confirmed at [105] that the Court may well decline to regard as controlling the application of s 52 assumptions by persons whose reactions are "extreme or fanciful". 92 In Campomar , the High Court then said at [105]: The initial question which must be determined was whether the misconceptions, or deceptions, alleged to arise or to be likely to arise are properly to be attributed to the ordinary or reasonable members of the classes of prospective purchasers. Their Honours emphasised at [106] as had been said in Taco Bell at 201, that the question whether particular conduct causes confusion or wonderment, or is misleading or deceptive, cannot be substituted for the question whether the conduct answers the statutory description contained in the section under consideration.