RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 06 September 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCA 1042
• Date: 06 September 2022
• Court: Federal Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1042

File number(s):	NSD 823 of 2021
Judgment of:	ROFE J
Date of judgment:	6 September 2022
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – whether the respondent infringed the second applicant’s registered trade marks under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the respondent used the depiction of its SOMAT dishwashing capsule as a trade mark – whether the respondent’s device was deceptively similar to the second applicant’s trade marks – whether the respondent’s device was used in good faith to indicate the kind, quality, or some other characteristic of the goods ; TRADE MARKS – cross-claim for removal for non-use under s 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the second applicant used its registered trade marks during the relevant period – whether the second applicant used devices substantially identical to its registered marks – whether use by the first applicant constituted authorised use ; CONSUMER LAW – whether the respondent’s use of its device constituted passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct under ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1938 (UK)
Cases cited:	Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (2021) 286 FCR 259 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt (2012) 202 FCR 490 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2020) 278 FCR 450 Australian Meat Group Pty Ltd v JBS Australia Pty Ltd (2018) 137 IPR 385 Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 Baume & Co Ltd v Moore (AH) Ltd [1958] RPC 226 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd (2018) 129 IPR 482 BP plc v Woolworths Limited (2004) 212 ALR 79 CA Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd (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 Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd (1994) 31 IPR 375 Ceramiche Caesar SPA v Caesarstone Ltd (2020) 154 IPR 237 Chocolaterie Guylian NV v Registrar of Trade Marks (2009) 180 FCR 60 Coca-Cola Co v All-Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 107 Colorado Group v Strandbags Group No 2 (2006) 69 IPR 281 Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co KG Arzneimittel (2021) 157 IPR 230 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302 Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd (2004) 139 FCR 215 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 144 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 934 Frucor Beverages Ltd v The Coca-Cola Company (2018) 132 IPR 318 Global Brand Marketing Inc v Cube Footwear Pty Ltd (2005) 66 IPR 19 Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc (2020) 15 IPR 186 Hermes Trade Mark [1982] RPC 425 Johnson & Johnson Aust Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 326 Kowa Co Ltd v Organon [2005] FCA 1282 Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC (2016) 244 FCR 557 Mayne Industries Pty Ltd v Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd (2008) 75 IPR 102 Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd (2010) 87 IPR 464 New South Wales Dairy Corporation v Murray-Goulburn Co-operative Co Ltd (No 1) (1989) 14 IPR 26 Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 89 IPR 457 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (2011) 93 IPR 202 PDP Capital Pty Ltd v Grasshopper Ventures Pty Ltd (2021) 160 IPR 174 Pepsico Australia Pty Ltd v Kettle Chip Company Pty Ltd (1996) 33 IPR 161 Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products (1997) 40 IPR 279 Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (2014) 106 IPR 291 Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Ltd (2019) 148 IPR 211 Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Registrar of Trade Marks (1977) 137 CLR 670 Puxu Pty Ltd v Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd (1980) 31 ALR 73 RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1094 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411 Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592 Sports Warehouse Inc v Fry Consulting Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 519 Stone & Wood Group Pty Ltd v Intellectual Property Development Corp Pty Ltd (2018) 129 IPR 238 Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Taxiprop Pty Ltd v Neutron Holdings Inc (2020) 156 IPR 1 Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd (2014) 107 IPR 333 TGI Friday’s Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc (1999) 45 IPR 43 Trident Seafoods Corporation v Trident Foods Pty Ltd (2019) 143 IPR 1 Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirene Pty Ltd (2020) 150 IPR 11
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Number of paragraphs:	404
Date of hearing:	16–18 November 2021
Counsel for the Applicants:	Michael Hall SC with Gilbert Tsang
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Thomson Geer
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ed Heerey QC with Peter Creighton-Selvay
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ashurst Australia

ORDERS

		NSD 823 of 2021
BETWEEN:	RB (HYGIENE HOME) AUSTRALIA PTY LTD First Applicant ; RECKITT BENCKISER FINISH BV Second Applicant
AND:	HENKEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	HENKEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Cross-Claimant
AND:	RECKITT BENCKISER FINISH BV Cross-Respondent

order made by:	ROFE J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 September 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties confer and, within 14 days of these orders, submit to the Associate to Justice Rofe an agreed minute of orders giving effect to these reasons.

2. Failing agreement, each party provide their proposed minute of orders...