Mitolo Wines Aust Pty Ltd v Vito Mitolo & Son Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judge: BESANKO J
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] FCA 902
• Court: Federal Court
• Date: 13 June 2019

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mitolo Wines Aust Pty Ltd v Vito Mitolo & Son Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 902

File number:	SAD 340 of 2016
Judge:	BESANKO J
Date of judgment:	13 June 2019
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS — where the applicants seek relief for trade mark infringement — whether the first respondent contravened s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) by using a mark that is deceptively similar to the applicants’ registered trade marks — consideration of the principles relevant to deceptive similarity in relation to a word mark — whether the use of a common surname would lead customers to have cause to wonder about the applicants’ products and the respondents’ products originating from the same source — whether it is necessary to consider surrounding circumstances — whether deceptive similarity is to be assessed having regard only to the registered owner’s actual use of its mark — whether the first respondent used its own name in good faith pursuant to s 122(1)(a)(i) of the Trade Marks Act — whether the respondents knew or understood that the use of the first respondent’s own name may well cause confusion ; CONSUMER LAW — where the applicants allege contraventions of ss 18 and 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law — whether the first respondent engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive — whether the first respondent represented that it and the applicants are the same person — whether the first respondent represented that its wines were produced by or at the direction of the applicants — whether the first respondent represented that its wines have the sponsorship or approval of, or an affiliation with the applicants — consideration of the difference between confusion and error — where the applicants adduced evidence of confusion by customers and consumers ; TORTS — where the applicants seek relief for the tort of passing off — consideration of the principles relevant to passing off — whether the applicants have established a reputation in connection with wines — whether the respondents represented that their wines were associated with, or approved or endorsed by the applicants ; ESTOPPEL — whether the applicants are estopped from asserting trade mark infringement and contraventions of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law — consideration of the principles relevant to promissory estoppel — whether the applicants made representations on which the respondents relied — whether such reliance was reasonable — whether the respondents suffered detriment in reliance on the representations
Legislation:	Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) ss 2, 18, 29, 232, 236 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 59, 63, 64, 66A, 67 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 6, 10, 17, 120, 122, 126
Cases cited:	Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 882;(2015) 115 IPR 67 Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 6; (2018) 259 FCR 514 Anheuser-Busch, Inc v Budejovicky Budvar, Narodni Podnik [2002] FCA 390; (2002) 56 IPR 182 Austereo Pty Ltd v DMG Radio (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 968; (2004) 209 ALR 93 Australian Meat Group Pty Ltd v JBS Australia Pty Limited [2018] FCAFC 207; (2018) 363 ALR 113 Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia [2013] FCAFC 153;(2013) 308 ALR 1 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton & Co Ltd [1937] HCA 51; (1937) 58 CLR 641 Baume & Co Ltd v A H Moore Ltd [1958] Ch 907; (1958) 2 WLR 797; [1958] RPC 226 Berlei Hestia Industries Ltd v Bali Co Inc [1973] HCA 43; (1973) 129 CLR 353 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60; (2004) 218 CLR 592 CA Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1539; (2000) 52 IPR 42 Coca-Cola Company v PepsiCo Inc (No 2) [2014] FCA 1287; (2014) 322 ALR 505; (2014) 109 IPR 429 Flexopack SA Plastics Industry v Flexopack Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 235;(2016) 118 IPR 239 Global Brand Marketing Inc v Cube Footwear Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 852; (2005) 66 IPR 19 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11; (1978) 140 CLR 216 HP Bulmer Ltd and Showerings Ltd v J Bollinger SA and Anor [1978] 95 RPC 79 Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1969) 122 CLR 49 Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 348 Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2)[2010] FCA 291;(2010) 183 FCR 450 MID Sydney Pty Ltd v Australian Tourism Co Limited (1998) 90 FCR 236 Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 198; (2010) 86 IPR 1 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FCAFC 117; (2010) 87 IPR 464 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray Goulbourn Co-operative Company Ltd(1989) 86 ALR 549; (1989) 14 IPR 26 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 130; (2011) 197 FCR 67 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44; (1982) 149 CLR 191 Parker-Knoll Ltd v Knoll International Ltd [1961] RPC 346 Parker-Knoll Ltd v Knoll International Ltd (No 2) [1962] RPC 265 (HL) Ratten v R [1972] AC 378 S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Lifer Saver Pty Ltd (1998) 88 FCR 354 Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd v Pernod Record Winemakers Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1515 SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1027; (1999) 45 IPR 169 Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd(1963) 109 CLR 407 Smith & Nephew Plastics (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sweetheart Holding Corporation (1987) 8 IPR 285 Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 82; (1954) 91 CLR 592 Stone and Wood Group Pty Ltd v Intellectual Property Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 820; (2016) 120 IPR 478 Sydneyside Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 157; (2002) 234 FCR 549; (2002) 55 IPR 354 Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7;(1988) 164 CLR 387 Wellness Pty Limited v Pro Bio Living Waters Pty Limited [2004] FCA 438; (2004) 61 IPR 242
Dates of hearing:	5–7, 10–12, 14 September 2018
Registry:	South Australia
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Category:	Catchwords
...