10th Cantanae Pty. Ltd. v. Shoshana Pty. Ltd.
Australia Federal Court
79 A.L.R. 299 (1987)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Sue Smith (plaintiff) was a television personality who was well-known in the New South Wales area and in other parts of Australia. Smith’s interests were represented by her company, Shoshana Pty. Ltd. (Shoshana) (plaintiff). 10th Cantanae Pty. Ltd. (advertiser) (defendant) created print advertisements for Blaupunkt video recorders. The advertisements depicted a young woman who was watching television. The text of the advertisements informed the viewer that the woman in the advertisements, “Sue Smith,” had taken control of her video recorder. Smith and the woman in the advertisements were both brunettes but did not otherwise resemble each other. Smith and Shoshana sued the advertiser for passing off. The trial court found that the advertiser was unfamiliar with Smith and that the advertiser’s use of the name Sue Smith was coincidental. The trial court broadened Australian passing-off law by holding that to prevail, a plaintiff needed only to show that there was any representation that the plaintiff endorsed the defendant’s product. The trial court found that viewers would associate Smith with the advertisements because the advertisements contained the same name. The trial held the advertiser liable for passing off, among other claims. The advertiser appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilcox, J.)
Concurrence (Pincus, J.)
Dissent (Gummow, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.