Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] FCAFC 65
• Date: 14 April 2020
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited [2020] FCAFC 65

Appeal from:	Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited (No 8)[2019] FCA 593
File number:	VID 597 of 2019
Judges:	FOSTER, MOSHINSKY AND O'BRYAN JJ
Date of judgment:	14 April 2020
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS – construction of agreements relating to the restructure of the Kraft Foods Inc group in October 2012 – where two independent public companies were created: a global snacks business (SnackCo) and a North American grocery business (GroceryCo) – where certain intellectual property rights were allocated to the intellectual property company of the SnackCo group (SnackCo IPCo) and certain such rights were allocated to the intellectual property company of the GroceryCo group (GroceryCo IPCo) – whether rights in relation to certain get-up used by an Australian company for peanut butter products manufactured and sold in Australia (the Peanut Butter Trade Dress) were allocated to SnackCo IPCo or GroceryCo IPCo – construction of various definitions used in the agreements – consideration of commercial purpose or object of the agreements ; CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether either party engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law (or passing off) by applying the Peanut Butter Trade Dress to peanut butter products – whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to its television and radio advertisements – whether the appellants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in a press release and by use of the slogan “Loved since 1935” ; TRADE MARKS – infringement – where primary judge found that the respondent had infringed the appellants’ trade marks by supplying certain peanut butter products in ‘shippers’ bearing the Kraft hexagon logo – whether the respondent used the Kraft hexagon logo trade mark (or the “Kraft” trade mark) “as a trade mark” within the meaning of s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 29 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss 7, 120
Cases cited:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Barefoot Contessa Pantry, LLC v Aqua Star (USA) Co (U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, 15-CIV-1092 (JMF) 26 February 2015) Bodum v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd (2011) 280 ALR 639 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd(2007) 159 FCR 397 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd(2000) 202 CLR 45 Coca-Cola Co v All-Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 107 Commissioner of State Revenue v Placer Dome Inc (2018) 93 ALRJ 65 Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller & Co.’s Margarine Ltd[1901] AC 217 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd(1992) 33 FCR 302 CPA Australia Ltd v Dunn (2007) 74 IPR 495; [2007] FCA 1966 Defiance Button Machine Co v C & C Metal Products Corp, 759 F2d 1053 (2d Cir 1985) Dental Manufacturing Co Ltd v C de Trey & Co[1912] 3 KB 76 E&J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd(2010) 241 CLR 144 Estex Clothing Manufacturers Pty Ltd v Ellis and Goldstein Ltd (1966) 116 CLR 254 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry (1998) 193 CLR 605 Geraghty v Minter(1979) 142 CLR 177 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435 Henry Clay & Bock & Co Ltd v Eddy (1915) 19 CLR 641 Homart Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Careline Australia Pty Ltd (2018) 264 FCR 422 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd(1978) 140 CLR 216 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 JT International SA v Commonwealth (2012) 250 CLR 1 Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Ltd(2014) 223 FCR 517 Lacteosote Ltd v Alberman [1927] 2 Ch 117 Marshak v Green, 746 F2d 927 (2d Cir 1984) Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 67 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd(1982) 149 CLR 191 Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Registrar of Trade Marks (1977) 137 CLR 670 Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc[1990] 1 WLR 491 Re GE Trade Mark[1969] RPC 418 Re McGregor Trade Mark[1979] RPC 36 Revlon Inc v Cripps & Lee Ltd[1980] FSR 85 State Government Insurance Corporation v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales(1991) 28 FCR 511 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Visa USA Inc v Birmingham Trust National Bank, 696 F2d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1982) Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng(2007) 164 FCR 369
Date of hearing:	6, 7 and 8 November 2019
Date of last submissions:	22 November 2019
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Regulator and Consumer Protection
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	270
Counsel for the Appellants and Cross-Respondents:	Mr JT Gleeson SC with Mr BN Caine QC, Mr IP Horak and Dr B Kremer
Solicitor for the Appellants and Cross-Respondents:	Jones Day
Counsel for the Respondent and Cross-Appellant:	Mr A McGrath SC with Mr CH Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent and Cross-Appellant:	Addisons Lawyers

ORDERS

		VID 597 of 2019
BETWEEN:	KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC First Appellant ; H.J. HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LIMITED Second Appellant
AND:	BEGA CHEESE LIMITED Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	BEGA CHEESE LIMITED Cross-Appellant
AND:	KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC First Cross-Respondent
AND:	H.J. HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LIMITED Second Cross-Respondent

JUDGES:	FOSTER, MOSHINSKY AND O'BRYAN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	14 ApRil 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The cross-appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

INTRODUCTION

...