Case name & citation: Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44; (1982) 149 CLR 191; 42 ALR 1; 56 ALJR 715
- High Court of Australia
- Decision date: 11 August 1982
- The bench of judges: Gibbs C.J., Mason, Murphy, Brennan JJ
- Area of law: Trade Practices—Consumer protection—Misleading or deceptive conduct
The case Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) revolves around the application of Section 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive.
Background of the case
Puxu Pty Ltd manufactured and sold “Post and Rail” furniture, specifically the “Contour” range of lounge suites, since 1976–1977. These products were well-advertised and had a distinctive design but were not protected under the Designs Act 1906.
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd began manufacturing the “Rawhide” range of furniture in 1978. This range closely resembled Puxu’s “Contour” range in appearance and design but was of lower quality and price.
Claims by Puxu
Puxu alleged that Parkdale’s conduct in manufacturing and marketing the “Rawhide” range was misleading or deceptive under Section 52(1). It argued that the similarity in design could lead customers to believe the “Rawhide” products were part of Puxu’s “Contour” range, thereby damaging its reputation and market.
Evidence of Misleading Conduct
Instances were cited where customers mistook “Rawhide” furniture for Puxu’s “Contour” furniture. However, these incidents often involved retailers removing labels or providing misleading information, actions not directly attributable to Parkdale.
Court Decisions in Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd
1. Trial Court: Found no evidence that Parkdale intentionally misled consumers or engaged in deceptive conduct. It held that labelling the “Rawhide” products adequately distinguished them from Puxu’s products.
2. Federal Court (Full Bench): Reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the close resemblance between the products created an inherent potential for deception, regardless of labelling.
3. High Court of Australia (Final Appeal): Allowed Parkdale’s appeal, ruling that:
• The mere resemblance in design does not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct if proper labelling distinguishes the products.
• Parkdale’s labelling practice satisfied Section 52, as reasonable consumers were expected to examine labels when purchasing high-value items like furniture.
Given below are some excerpts from the judgment of Chief Justice Gibbs:
“An ordinary person who read the label could not possibly be deceived or misled.” (at p197)
“If the label is removed by some person for whose acts the defendant is not responsible, and in consequence the purchaser is misled, the misleading effect will have been produced, not by the conduct of the defendant, but by the conduct of the person who removed the label.” (at p200)
“To prove a breach of s. 52 it is not enough to establish that the conduct complained of was confusing or caused people to wonder whether two products may have come from the same source.” (at p199)
“The freedom to copy and sell any article on the market is a corollary of the policy of the law against monopolies.” (at p221)
Key Principles Established
Section 52(1): Does not create monopoly rights for manufacturers; its purpose is to prevent consumer deception.
Consumer Standard: The standard for deception considers ordinary, reasonable consumers, who are expected to exercise some care in their purchases.
Copying and Competition: Copying designs in itself does not violate Section 52 unless accompanied by misleading conduct.
Outcome (Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd)
The High Court ruled in favour of Parkdale, emphasizing that consumer protection under Section 52 must be balanced with the principles of free competition and the absence of statutory design protection.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM SALE OF GOODS/CONSUMER LAW: