Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation[1982] HCA 44,1982-0811 HCA B
Date1982
Year1982
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
418 cases
5 firm's commentaries
  • Fine print in ad not good enough, says High Court of Australia
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 3 January 2014
    ...Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2012) 210 FCR 277. 3Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191. 4Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd (2010) 241 CLR Winner - EOWA Employer of Choice for Wome......
  • Google Adwords And The Use Of Competitors' Trade Marks On The Internet
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 11 December 2008
    ...Pty Limited v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd (2001) 53 IPR 481 at 515 13. Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 1 14. ibid at 15. ibid at 4-16 16. ibid at 15, 16 17. Brinkema J, Memorandum Opinion, Government Employees Insurance Company v Google Inc. et al, U......
  • Plunger wars: Latest decision bodes well for Bodum
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 2 September 2011
    ...the famous decision of the High Court of Australia in Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 in 1982, it has been commonly accepted that a rival trader can copy someone else's product with impunity (unless the product is protected by statutory intellectual......
  • FSR GPS: When Is An Incorrect Misstatement Not Misleading Or Deceptive?
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 12 July 2023
    ...ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 114, [179] and ASIC v CBA, [82]. 4. Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44, [9] (Gibbs 5. Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Limited (2004) 218 CLR 592, [109]. The content of this article is intended to provide a gen......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • CONSUMER PROTECTION, STATUTE AND
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...51Freely Pte Ltd v Ong Kaili[2010] 2 SLR 1065 at [45], per Woo Bih Li J. See similarly Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu(1982) 149 CLR 191 at 197–198, per Gibbs CJ. 52RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd[2015] 1 SLR 997 at [77]. 53Freely Pte Ltd v Ong Kaili[2010] 2 S......
  • The Intersection between Registered and Unregistered Trade Marks
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 35-3, September 2007
    • 1 September 2007
    ...[2006] ATMO 84, [12] (Hearing Officer Williams); Coloplast A/S v Ezy Products Pty Ltd [2007] ATMO 60, [33] (Hearing Officer Dunn). 37 (1982) 149 CLR 191 ('Parkdale'), 198. See also at 210 (Mason J). 384 Federal Law Review Volume 35 ___________________________________________________________......
  • DISENTANGLING FUNCTIONALITY, DISTINCTIVENESS AND USE IN AUSTRALIAN TRADE MARK LAW.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 42 No. 1, August 2018
    • 1 August 2018
    ...courts would not find that a misrepresentation had occurred. See generally Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 and, for the equivalent approach in the United Kingdom in a passing off case, see Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR ......
  • The fair competition act, 1993 (Jamaica) - analysis and comment
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 4-2, December 1994
    • 1 December 1994
    ...fact acted. 21 This analysis would require an actual 19 See n.8, supra. 20 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Co Pty Ltd. v. Puxu Pty Ltd. (1982) 149 CLR 191. McWilliarn’s Wines Ltd. v. McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd. (1980) 49 FLR 455, (1980) ATPR para.40-188, Taco Co of Australia Pty......