Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 23 December 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] FCAFC 235
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)
• Date: 23 December 2020

Federal Court of Australia

Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc [2020] FCAFC 235

Appeal from:	In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 193
File number:	NSD 700 of 2020
Judgment of:	NICHOLAS, YATES AND BURLEY JJ
Date of judgment:	23 December 2020
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – appeal – deceptive similarity – whether primary judge erred in finding DOWN-N-OUT deceptively similar to IN-N-OUT BURGER – appeal dismissed ; TRADE MARKS – cross-appeal from finding that directors not liable as joint tortfeasors with company for trade mark infringement – cross-appeal allowed ; CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – appeal from findings that appellants’ conduct amounted to representation of an association with respondent – appeal dismissed ; TORTS – passing off – appeal from finding that appellants’ conduct amounted to passing off – whether necessary for respondent to have a reputation in the form of business and customers in Australia to support claim – appeal dismissed ; TORTS – passing off – cross-appeal from finding that directors not liable as joint tortfeasors with company for passing off – cross-appeal allowed
Legislation:	Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) s 18(1) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 10 and 120 Trade Marks Act 1905 (Cth) s 114
Cases cited:	Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; 261 FCR 301 Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership v Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH [2001] FCA 1874; 54 IPR 344 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd[2013] HCA 54; 250 CLR 640 Australian Woollen Mills Limited v FS Walton & Co Ltd [1937] HCA 51; 58 CLR 641 C A Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd[2000] FCA 1539; 52 IPR 42 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd [2000] HCA 12; 202 CLR 45 Coca‑Cola Co v All‑Fect Distributors Ltd[1999] FCA 1721; 96 FCR 107 Colgate-Palmolive Ltd v Pattron [1978] RPC 635 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 176; 33 FCR 302 Conde Nast Publications Pty Ltd v Taylor [1998] FCA 864; 41 IPR 505 Cooper Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd[1952] HCA 15; 86 CLR 536 Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 105; 264 FCR 422 In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd[2020] FCA 193; 377 ALR 116 Jafferjee v Scarlett[1937] HCA 36; 57 CLR 115 Johnson & Johnson v Kalnin[1993] FCA 279; (1993) 26 IPR 43 Jones v Dunkel[1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20; 116 IPR 440 Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 55; 185 FCR 449 Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries Inc[2013] FCAFC 59; 211 FCR 449 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulburn Co‑operative Company Ltd [1989] FCA 124; 86 ALR 549 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 (No 2) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1380; 89 IPR 457 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd[1982] HCA 44; 149 CLR 191 Parker-Knoll Ltd v Knoll International Ltd[1962] RPC 265 Performing Right Society Ltd v Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate Ltd [1924] 1 KB 1 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; 251 FCR 379 Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Co v Hy-Line Chicks Pty Ltd[1979] RPC 410 Re London Lubricants (1920) Ltd’s Application (1925) 42 RPC 264 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd [1999] FCA 1020; 93 FCR 365 Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980; 177 ALR 231 Southern Cross Refrigeration Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82; 91 CLR 592 Starbucks (UK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc [2015] 1WLR 2628 Stone & Wood Group Pty Ltd v Intellectual Property Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 29; 129 IPR 238 Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156; 237 FCR 388 The Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66; 109 CLR 407 University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2)[1985] HCA 28; 60 ALR 68 Upjohn Co v Schering AG (1994) 29 IPR 434 Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 104; 247 FCR 570 Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd v Tivo Inc[2012] FCAFC 159; 99 IPR 1
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Number of paragraphs:	142
Date of hearing:	9 November 2020
Counsel for the Appellants/Cross-Respondents:	Mr R. Lancaster SC with Mr H. Bevan and Mr E. Thompson
Solicitor for the Appellants/Cross-Respondents:	Automic Group
Counsel for the Respondent/Cross-Appellant:	Mr C. Dimitriadis SC with Mr C. Burgess and Ms M. Evetts
Solicitor for the Respondent/Cross-Appellant:	Baker McKenzie

ORDERS

		NSD 700 of 2020
BETWEEN:	HASHTAG BURGERS PTY LTD First Appellant ; BENJAMIN MARK KAGAN Second Appellant ; ANDREW SALIBA Third Appellant
AND:	IN-N-OUT BURGERS, INC Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	IN-N-OUT BURGERS, INC Cross-Appellant
AND:	HASHTAG BURGERS PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule) First Cross-Respondent

order made by:	NICHOLAS, YATES AND BURLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	23 December 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The cross-appeal be allowed.

3. The orders made by the primary judge on 29 May 2020 be amended by the addition of the following declarations:

2A. The first and second respondent have, in the period since 23 June 2017, infringed the In-N-Out Trade Marks, being those trade marks bearing Australian Trade Mark Registration Nos. 563986, 563987, 1190205 and 1345820, by joining in the infringements of the first respondent that are referred to in order 1 above as joint tortfeasors.

...

6A. The first and second respondent have, in the period since 23 June 2017, engaged in the tort of passing off, by joining in the conduct of the first respondent that is referred to in order 5 above as joint tortfeasors.

4. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

5. The second and third appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the cross-appeal.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 INTRODUCTION	[1]
1.1 Approach on appeal	[8]
2 THE REASONS OF THE PRIMARY JUDGE RELEVANT TO THE TRADE MARK APPEAL	[9]
2.1 Background factual findings relevant to the trade mark appeal	[9]
2.2 The primary judge’s consideration of the trade mark infringement claim	[35]
3 THE TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT...