Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 07 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCAFC 163
• Date: 07 September 2021
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 163

Appeal from:	Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1530 Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 185
File numbers:	NSD 35 of 2021 NSD 249 of 2021
Judgment of:	JAGOT, LEE AND THAWLEY JJ
Date of judgment:	7 September 2021
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in concluding that the respondents did not infringe the appellant’s BOTOX mark by using PROTOX as a trade mark – whether primary judge erred in concluding that PROTOX was not deceptively similar to BOTOX – held that PROTOX is deceptively similar to BOTOX mark – infringement established ; TRADE MARKS – infringement claim pursuant to s 120 of the Act– whether the respondents used the composite phrase “instant Botox® alternative” as a trade mark – whether “instant BOTOX® alternative” deceptively similar to appellant’s BOTOX marks – phrase was used as a trade mark – phrase was deceptively similar to BOTOX mark – whether comparative advertising “defence” under s 122(1)(d) of the Act available and established – meaning of “comparative advertising – whether “defences” under s 122(1)(b) and (c) and (e) of the Act available and established – discussion of the nature of s 122 “defences” – defences not made out – infringement established ; CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – performance characteristics, uses or benefits – representations as to period of time effect of treatment would last – whether the use by the respondents of the phrase “instant Botox® alternative”, assessed in context, conveyed a representation that the respondents’ Inhibox product would provide results which would, after treatment has ceased, last about as long as treatment with Botox – contraventions of s 18, s 29(1)(a) and s 29(1)(g) Australian Consumer Law, being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) established
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 4, 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g), 232, 236 Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1905 (Cth) s 16(1)(d) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 10, 17, 24, 41(1), 42(b), 44, 58, 59, 60, 62A, 120(1), 122(1)(a), 122(1)(b), 122(1)(c), 122(1)(d), 122(1)(e), 126(1)(a), 126(1)(b), 126(2)
Cases cited:	Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 56; (2017) 345 ALR 205 Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; (2018) 261 FCR 301 Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd[2020] FCA 1530; (2020) 156 IPR 413 Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)[2021] FCA 185 Anheuser Busch v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik[2002] FCA 390; (2002) 56 IPR 182 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd[2013] HCA 54; (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Woollen MillsLimited v F S Walton and Company Limited[1937] HCA 51; (1937) 58 CLR 641 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 235;(2018) 54 ALR 353 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1835; (2001) 117 FCR 424 Colorado Group Limited v Strandbags Group Pty Limited [2007] FCAFC 184; (2007) 164 FCR 506 GilletteAustralia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd[2002] FCAFC 223; 193 ALR 629 Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc[2020] FCAFC 235; (2020) 385 ALR 514 Irving’s Yeast-Vite Ltd v Horsenail (1934) 51 RPC 110 Mark Foy’s Ltd v Davies Coop & Co Ltd[1956] HCA 51; (1956) 95 CLR 190 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestlé Australia Ltd[2010] FCAFC 117; (2010) 272 ALR 487 P B Foods Ltd v Malanda Dairy Foods Ltd [1999] FCA 1602; (1999) 47 IPR 47 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 128 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imagin Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; (2017) 251 FCR 379 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCA 1020; (1999) 93 FCR 365 Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82; (1954) 91 CLR 592 Swancom Pty Ltd v The Jazz Corner Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2)[2021] FCA 328 The Shell Company of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited [1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407 The Coca-Cola Company v All-Fect Distributors Ltd (t/as Millers Distributing Company) [1999] FCA 1721; (1999) 96 FCR 107
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Number of paragraphs:	138
Date of last submissions:	1 September 2021
Date of hearing:	19 August 2021
Counsel for the Appellants:	S Goddard SC with S Ross
Solicitor for the Appellants:	Griffith Hack Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	RP Lancaster SC with AR Lang SC
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Minter Ellison

ORDERS

		NSD 35 of 2021
BETWEEN:	ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 612 831) First Appellant ; ALLERGAN INC Second Appellant
AND:	SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 134 308 151) First Respondent ; SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 132 213 113) Second Respondent

order made by:	JAGOT, LEE AND THAWLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	7 September 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondents be granted leave to rely upon the amended notice of contention filed on 27 August 2021.

2. The appeal be allowed.

3. Order 7 of the orders made on 7 December 2020 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the cross-claim be dismissed.

4. The proceedings be remitted to the primary judge for determination of:

(a) damages or an account of profits for infringement of the BOTOX Mark pursuant to s 126(1)(b) of the TM Act;

(b) additional damages under s 126(2) of the TM Act;

(c) damages under s 236 of the ACL; and

(d) any account or inquiry as to damages or profits as may be necessary.

5. The parties confer with a view to confirming within 7 days the form of declarations and injunctions proposed in the reasons for judgment or providing to the Court agreed declarations and injunctions or, failing agreement, competing versions thereof together with submissions of no longer than 2 pages in support.

6. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

		NSD 249 of 2021
BETWEEN:	ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 612 831) First Appellant ; ALLERGAN INC Second Appellant
AND:	SELF CARE IP HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 134 308 151) First Respondent ; SELF CARE CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 132 213 113) Second Respondent

order...