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

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judge: KATZMANN J
• Judgment Date: 26 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] FCA 193
• Court: Federal Court
• Date: 26 February 2020

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 193

File number:	NSD 1746 of 2017
Judge:	KATZMANN J
Date of judgment:	26 February 2020
Catchwords:	INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY— Trade marks — infringement — deceptive similarity — where marks used in relation to goods and services of the same description consist of a combination of words, two of which are identical, or that word combination with additional features some of which are similar — whether respective marks resemble each other — whether real or tangible danger that similarities in marks could deceive or cause confusion — where no evidence given by respondents on intention, whether inference from other evidence such as to call for an explanation — consequences of absence of explanation ; CONSUMER LAW — Misleading or deceptive conduct — use of allegedly similar business names and trade marks in relation to the sale of fast food items and burgers in particular — where applicant a foreign company with no fixed or permanent business in Australia, whether applicant had or has a reputation in Australia — whether respondents intended to mislead or deceive consumers — whether respondents’ mark or marks adopted for the purpose of appropriating the reputation of the applicant — where no relationship between applicant and respondent and use of marks by respondent not authorised by applicant, whether respondents represented by the use of its trade names that their goods and/or services were provided by or associated with applicant or provided with the endorsement, approval, licence, authority or sponsorship of applicant ; TORTS — Passing-off — where applicant a foreign company, whether applicant had or has a reputation in Australia — whether respondents represented that their business was the applicant’s or was endorsed by or had an association with the applicant — whether likelihood of damage ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for suppression or non-publication order — confidential commercially sensitive information — whether order necessary to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice — appropriate duration of order
Legislation:	Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 2, 18(1), 236 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 6, 7, 10, 17, 70, 120
Cases cited:	[Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership v Frito-Lay Trading Co GmBH [2001] FCA 1874; (2011) 190 ALR 185; 54 IPR 344 Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Limited v McCallum & Co Pty Limited (2001) 53 IPR 400 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar [2002] FCA 390; (2002) 56 IPR 182 Aristoc Ltd v Rysta [1945] AC 68 Australia Postal Corporation v Digital Post [2013] FCAFC 153; (2013) 308 ALR 1 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1430 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cement Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1082 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Origin Energy Electricity Ltd [2015] FCA 278; ATPR ¶42-495 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 5) [2016] FCA 741 Australian Woollen Mills Limited v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Co Inc(1973) 129 CLR 353 Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 5) [2009] FCA 1011 Bridge Stockbrokers Ltd v Bridges (1974) 4 FCR 460 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 British Thomson-Houston Company Ltd v Sterling Accessories Ltd[1924] 2 Ch 33 CAHenschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd[2000] FCA 1539; (2000) 52 IPR 42 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd(2007) 159 FCR 397 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 Coca-Cola Company v All-Fect Distributors Ltd(1999) 96 FCR 107 (FC) Colgate-Palmolive Ltd v Pattron [1978] RPC 635 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 461 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd(1992) 33 FCR 302 Conde Nast Publications Pty Ltd v Taylor (1998) 41 IPR 505 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Marks & Spencer P/c [1991] RPC 351 Cooper Engineering Company Pty Ltd v Sigmund Pumps Ltd(1952) 86 CLR 536 Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Limited (2006) 156 FCR 380 Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd[2004] FCAFC 196; (2004) 209 ALR 1; 61 IPR 212 deCordova v Vick Chemical Company(1951) 68 RPC 103 Duracell Australia Pty Limited v Union Carbide Australia Limited (1988) 14 IPR 293 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd(2010) 241 CLR 144 Global Sportsman at 87; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634; (2014) 317 ALR 73 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd(1984) 2 FCR 82 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651 Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd (2018) 264 FCR 422 (FC) Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 403; (2017) 349 ALR 598; 126 IPR 498 Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v MDS Diagnostics Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 108; 85 IPR 525 Johnson & Johnson v Kalnin (1993) 114 ALR 215; (1993) 26 IPR 43 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd & Anor v Cummings & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1252 JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20; (2016) 329 ALR 625; 116 IPR 440 Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd (2010) 185 FCR 449 King v Milpurrurru(1996) 66 FCR 474 Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Gold Peg International Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 117; (2006) 234 ALR 241 LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 1941; 80 IPR 85 Lloyd v Belconnen Lakeview Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 2177 Mentmore Manufacturing Company Ltd v National Merchandising Manufacturing Company Inc (1978) 89 DLR (3d) 195 Microsoft Corporation v Auschina Polaris Pty Ltd(1996) 71 FCR 231 Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 17 Optical 88Ltd v Optical 88 (No 2) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1380; (2010) 275 ALR 526; 89 IPR 457 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd(1982) 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 (2007) 251 FCR 379 Prichard & Constance (Wholesale) Ltd v Amata Ltd (1924) 42 RPC 63 Re London Lubricants (1920) Ltd’s Application (1925) 42 RPC 264 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365 Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd[2000] FCA 980; 177 ALR 231; 49 IPR 225 Rysta Limited’s Application (1943) 60 RPC 87 SAP...