Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Software

Williams + Hughes Earns Recertification in Meritas, the Leading Global Alliance of Independent Business Law Firms

Williams + Hughes is pleased to announce that it has been awarded recertification in Meritas, a global alliance of independent business law firms. Williams + Hughes joined Meritas in 2014 and, as a condition of its membership, is required to successfully complete recertification every three years. 

Meritas is the only law firm alliance with an established and comprehensive means of monitoring the quality of its member firms, a process that saves clients’ time validating law firm credentials and experience. Meritas membership is selective and by invitation only. Firms are regularly assessed and recertified for the breadth of their practice expertise, client satisfaction and high standards of cybersecurity to keep legal information safe. Meritas’ extensive due diligence process ensures that only firms meeting the tenets of Meritas’ unique Quality Assurance Program are allowed to maintain membership. The measurement of the firm’s performance, based on input from clients, is reflected in a Satisfaction Index score, which is available online on the Meritas website.

“Our values of quality service and client satisfaction align with the Meritas mission to provide a safe and responsive global offering to clients,” said Damian Quail, Director. “We’ve successfully collaborated with colleagues in many jurisdictions around the world to solve client issues and help them seize opportunities outside of this market. We look forward to keeping those vital connections through membership in Meritas.”

The recertification process Williams + Hughes completed to maintain its membership status included exacting self-assessment, peer review by other law firms and client feedback.  

“Businesses trust the Meritas alliance of law firms for top-tier quality, convenience, consistency and value,” said Sona Pancholy, president of Meritas. “Williams + Hughes has demonstrated its commitment to world-class legal standards, and therefore has successfully earned its recertification in Meritas.”

For more information about our our membership in Meritas, please see here

About Meritas 

Meritas’ global alliance of independent, market-leading law firms provides borderless legal services to companies looking to effectively capture opportunities and solve issues anywhere in the world. Companies benefit from local knowledge, collective strength and new efficiencies when they work with Meritas law firms. The personal attention and care they experience is part of Meritas’ industry-first commitment to the utmost in quality of service and putting client priorities above all else. Founded in 1990, Meritas has member firms in 259 markets worldwide with more than 7,500 dedicated, collaborative lawyers. To locate a Meritas resource for a specific need or in a certain market, visit Meritas.org or call +1-612-339-8680

Meritas Welcomes DMAW Lawyers, Adelaide, to the Membership

Leading Adelaide commercial Firm, DMAW Lawyers has been selected to be South Australia’s representative firm for Meritas, the premier global alliance of independent law firms.

DMAW Lawyers will become an integral part of the Australia & New Zealand network of firms as well as the worldwide network of 191 law firms located across 96 countries.

This alliance will enhance DMAW Lawyers’ ability to support South Australian business interests both nationally and internationally.

DMAW’s Lawyer’s Managing Director, Mr Leo Walsh said “One of most attractive benefits of belonging to this network was the opportunity for our lawyers to participate in national and global conversations on business and legal issues. Not only does this expand our thinking, and add to our technical skills, but it help our lawyers build trusted, reliable relationships with lawyers in the regions that matter to our clients. Already we’ve participated in meetings with Insolvency experts across the country and with Senior Partners in Shanghai and Tokyo.”

Mr Mike Worsnop, Partner with Martelli McKegg in New Zealand and Co-Chair of Meritas ANZ: “We are delighted to have DMAW Lawyers join our group. Not only was their quality apparent but they’ve been very easy and responsive to deal with during our discussions.  They clearly demonstrated the type of service clients look for when using a firm in a different market.”

“DMAW Lawyers had to meet the rigorous requirements to become members of Meritas, the only law firm alliance with a Quality Assurance Program that ensures clients receive the same high-quality legal work and service from every Meritas firm.”

Meritas membership is extended by invitation only, and firms are regularly assessed for the breadth of their practice expertise and client satisfaction.

Ms Sona Pancholy, Meritas CEO: “In today’s environment having a commitment to a reliable network is more important than ever. Independent law firms, Corporate Counsel, Business Owners and their Commercial Advisors, all choose their portfolio of trusted legal relationships to match the issues and the markets they want to navigate. For 30 years, Meritas has cultivated a group of the best firms for this purpose.”

About DMAW Lawyers

DMAW Lawyers was established in Adelaide in 2002. The firm has ten Principals and a team of 50 staff. DMAW Lawyers focus on three areas of specialization being Corporate, Transactions, and Disputes for Business Clients.

Website: DMAW Lawyers

About Meritas

Founded in 1990, Meritas is the premier global alliance of independent law firms. As an invitation-only alliance, Meritas firms must adhere to uncompromising service standards to retain membership status. With 192 top-ranking law firms spanning 96 countries, Meritas delivers exceptional legal knowledge, personal attention and proven value to clients worldwide.  

Website:  Meritas 

In Australia and New Zealand, Meritas is represented by leading independent commercial law firms in each of these six major capital cities:

In Australia

Adelaide DMAW Lawyers

Brisbane Bennett & Philp

Melbourne Madgwicks Lawyers

Perth Williams+Hughes

Sydney Swaab  

In New Zealand

Auckland Martelli McKegg

Privacy policies and procedures: Australian businesses may have to comply with European GDPR laws

On Friday 25 May 2018 the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect, giving residents of the EU increased control over their personal data. Importantly, GDPR extends far beyond the boundaries of Europe.

Here we have summarized what this means for Australian businesses.

Does it apply to my Australian business?

GDPR can apply to businesses incorporated outside of the EU, regardless of their size.

GDPR applies to Australian businesses that:

• have an establishment in the EU;
• offer goods or services to EU individuals (including where no payment is required); or
• monitor the behaviour of EU individuals e.g. through the use of website “cookies”.

If an Australian company has an office in the EU, sells goods or services to people in the EU, or processes or handles data relating to EU individuals – even if that data processing occurs only in Australia - that is usually enough to bring the company within the scope of GDPR.

The fact that people in the EU can access a website is not enough to bring the company within GDPR. However, using a European language or currency on your website, or mentioning customers or users who are in the EU, can be considered having an intention to offer services to EU individuals. This will bring any data concerning those EU individuals within GDPR, and so the Australian business will need to comply with GDPR.

Who and what are covered?

The GDPR covers the “personal data” of an “EU individual”. The concept of an “EU individual” extends to EU residents, EU citizens and citizens of other countries who are temporarily in the EU. This could include an Australian resident working temporarily in the EU. The scope of “personal data” is broad - it includes any data set which can identify or single out an individual. It is broader than the definition of personal information under Australian legislation.

Importantly, GDPR focusses on the person to whom the information relates, not where the information handling or processing actually occurs.

So, an Australian company that uses computer servers provided by third parties to process the personal data of an EU individual (e.g. Amazon or Microsoft Azure servers) is bound by GDPR even if those servers are located outside of the EU. GDPR extends far beyond the boundaries of Europe.

If an Australian company has European customers, then they msut comply with GDPR.

We comply with Australian Privacy Laws, isn’t that enough?

Unfortunately it is not that simple. Although the Australian Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the GDPR have similar requirements, some requirements of GDPR are stricter than those under Australian privacy law. For example:

• Active, informed, specific consent must be obtained from EU individuals regarding use, collection and storage of their personal information. Companies cannot rely on pre-ticked boxes, opt-out clauses, bundled consents or employment contracts for consent. Privacy and consent cannot be obtained via clause 65 of a privacy policy on your website.
• Companies must notify EU individuals within 72 hours of a data breach occurring. This is a very short timeframe from discovery of a breach. Companies will need to put in place processes to deal with a breach before any breach actually occurs.
• Specific steps must be taken by a company when transferring personal data outside of Europe or to a third party commercial services provider.
• Companies must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures and processes, including data protection policies, to ensure and be able to demonstrate that data processing and retention complies with GDPR. Importantly, there must be “data protection by design and by default”.
• EU Individuals have a “right to be forgotten” under GDPR which does not yet exist under Australian privacy law.

If GDPR applies to your business, you may need to update your privacy policy and procedures to ensure compliance with these rules.

Alternatively, you may need to implement strategies to remove your business from the scope of GDPR. We can assist in this regard. 

Europe's Regulatory Focus- will non-EU companies be fined?

The processing of employee data, such as payroll data, has been identified by EU regulators as a key area for protection. Any Australian business that seriously breaches GDPR in relation to EU employee information could be the subject of enforcement action by EU regulators. In the event of a serious data breach, fines may be imposed. Fines under GDPR can be extremely high - up to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is greater.

Importantly, European regulators are taking action against non-EU companies. The first company to be fined under GDPR by the UK's Information Commissioners Office (ICO) was a Canadian company with apparently no EU presence. The ICO also issued a formal warning under GDPR in November 2018 to the Washington Post over how it was obtaining consent for cookies on its website. The ICO did not take the matter further at the time, and presumably will not in a post-Brexit world. However, it is clear that European regulators may target companies outside of Europe in sufficiently serious cases.

Also, any EU individual whose data has been compromised as a result of an unauthorised disclosure or data breach can take action directly against an Australian company under GDPR.

Many countries are following GDPR

Legislation similar to GDPR has already been passed in many jurisdictions outside of Europe. Other non-European countries are currently updating their privacy laws as a response to GDPR. These countries include Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, China and Hong Kong, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Norway, Panama, Peru, Russia, Singapore, California and the United Kingdom. Australian companies operating in, or with customers in, these countries will need to be sure they comply with those laws.

What to do now

The message is clear. Many Australian companies holding or processing personal data of an EU individual should:

• Review their current data processing practices to understand what data is collected, processed and retained
• Determine whether current information handling, security and retention practices comply with GDPR
• Update privacy policies, practices and procedures if GDPR is applicable
• Put in place measures to deal with a data breach before one occurs
• Obtain formal contractual guarantees from third party service providers (e.g. who host or process relevant data) that they are compliant with GDPR.

For Australian companies that wish to avoid the cost of dealing with GDPR, there are strategies that can be implemented to remove their business from the scope of GDPR.

If you have any questions about your company’s obligations or need help to comply with GDPR or avoid GDPR, please contact Damian Quail in our Perth office.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

COVID-19: Temporary relief for financially distressed individuals, companies and directors

The Australian Federal Government has announced temporary amendments to insolvency and bankruptcy laws, effective from 25 March 2020, to lessen the economic impacts of COVID-19 on individuals and businesses and to allow for business continuity. The legislation passed is called the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 (Cth) (the COVID-19 Legislation).

The new measures are intended to avoid unnecessary bankruptcies and insolvencies by providing:

• a safety net to help businesses to continue to operate during a temporary period of illiquidity, rather than entering voluntary administration or liquidation;  and
• a safety net to individuals to assist them with managing debt and avoiding bankruptcy.

The temporary amendments that will apply for 6 months from 25 March 2020 until 24 September 2020 include:

• increasing the threshold at which creditors can issue a statutory demand against companies from $2,000 to $20,000, and the time for responding to a statutory demand from 21 days to 6 months;
• relief for directors and holding companies from personal liability for new debts incurred during the period the company trades while insolvent (provided that the debt is incurred in the ordinary course of the company’s business);
• providing targeted relief for companies from provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) to deal with unforeseen events that arise as a result of the COVID-19 health crisis; and 
• a temporary increase in the threshold for a creditor to initiate bankruptcy proceedings from $5,000 to $20,000, and an increase in the time period for debtors to respond to a bankruptcy notice, as well as extending the period of protection a debtor receives after making a declaration of intention to present a debtor’s position (both of which are extended from 21 days to 6 months).

Statutory Demands (companies)

A failure to respond to a statutory demand creates a presumption of insolvency under the Act, and the company may be placed into liquidation.  The Government has temporarily increased the timeframe for a company to respond to a statutory demand from 21 days to 6 months, thereby lessening the threat of actions that could push a business into insolvency.

The amendments will not prevent the right of creditors to enforce debts against companies or individuals through the courts.  However, creditors will not be able to rely upon a failure to pay to commence winding up proceedings until the expiration of the 6 month period, if the statutory demand is served on or after 25 March 2020. 

Insolvent Trading (companies)

The introduction of a new section 588GAAA into the Act provides temporary relief to directors from personal liability for insolvent trading in respect of debts that are incurred by their company if the debt is incurred:

• during the 6 month period from 25 March 2020;
• in the ordinary course of the company’s business;  and
• before any appointment of an administrator or liquidator over the company (during the 6 month period).

According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the COVID-19 Legislation, a director is taken to incur a debt in the “ordinary course of the company’s business” if it is necessary to facilitate the continuation of the business during the 6 month period.  This could include a director taking out a loan to move some of the business operations online or incurring the debt to pay employees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the new provision of the Act provides protection during the 6 month period, a person wishing to rely on the temporary safe harbour in a court proceeding in which unlawful insolvent trading is alleged will bear an evidential burden in relation to that matter.  This means producing evidence to support their reliance on the temporary safe harbour.   

A holding company may also rely on the temporary safe harbour provisions for insolvent trading by its subsidiary if it takes reasonable steps to ensure the temporary safe harbour applies to each of the directors of the subsidiary, and to the debt, and if the temporary safe harbour does in fact apply as a matter of law.  The holding company must establish this by producing evidence to support their reliance on the temporary safe harbour.

Bankruptcy Proceedings (Individuals)

To assist individuals, the Government has made a number of changes to the personal insolvency system regulated by the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). These include:

• the threshold for the minimum amount of debt required for a creditor to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against a debtor will temporarily increase from $5,000 to $20,000;
• the time a debtor has to respond to a bankruptcy notice is increased from 21 days to 6 months; and    
• the period of protection a debtor receives after making a declaration of intention to present a debtor’s petition is extended from 21 days to 6 months.  

These temporary measures will apply for 6 months from 25 March 2020 until 24 September 2020.

Temporary Powers given to the Treasurer

The COVID-19 Legislation enables the Treasurer to provide short term regulatory relief to classes of persons that are unable to meet their obligations under the Act or the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) by:

• ordering that specified classes of persons are exempt from specified obligations;  or
• modifying specific obligations under the Act to enable specified classes or persons to comply with their obligations during the COVID-19 crisis.

The Treasurer can exercise this power if they are satisfied that it would not be reasonable to expect the persons in the class to comply with provisions because of the impact of COVID-19, or the exemption or modification is otherwise necessary or appropriate in order to facilitate continuation of business in circumstances relating to COVID-19, or to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.

This is a temporary provision to facilitate the continuation of business during the coronavirus.

For specific legal advice regarding the new safe harbour provisions, including regarding issuing or responding to a demand to or from your creditors or debtors, please contact Leanne Allison or Cameron Sutton. 

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Covid 19- an overview of the JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme

The core component of the Federal Government’s business support package in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is the JobKeeper scheme. This scheme is intended to help employers retain employees on their books, with the objective of ensuring money continues to circulate in the economy during these challenging times.

The JobKeeper legislation was passed by the Federal Parliament on 8 April 2020.  Rules dealing with administering the scheme were made by the Treasurer on 9 April 2020.

The JobKeeper payment is, in a nutshell, a AUD$1,500 per fortnight per employee wage subsidy paid by the Federal Government to employers until 27 September 2020. 

The estimated cost of this measure is AUD $130 billion. The Government has stated that $1,500 per fortnight is the equivalent of about 70% of the median Australian wage and represents about 100% of the median Australian wage in some of the most heavily affected sectors, such as retail, hospitality and tourism.

The scheme operates via a reimbursement system. Participating employers make wages payments to their employees and are then reimbursed in arrears $1,500 by the Government per eligible employee per fortnight. The Government does not pay employees direct. The JobKeeper payment cannot be claimed in advance. The first payments to eligible employers will commence in the first week of May 2020.The first payment is for the fortnight of 30 March - 12 April 2020 i.e. the scheme commences from that date.

Employers who wish to participate in the scheme must register their interest through the Australian Taxation Office website here by 31 May  2020.

Key Eligibility Requirements

• The employer must be an "eligible employer"

The employer must pursue their objectives principally in Australia.

An employer is not eligible for the JobKeeper payment if any of the following apply:

• the Major Bank Levy was imposed on the employer or a member of its consolidated group for any quarter before 1 March 2020
• the entity is an Australian government agency (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997)
• the entity is a local governing body i.e. a local government council
• the entity is wholly owned by an Australian government agency or local governing body
• the entity is a sovereign entity
• the entity is a company in liquidation
• the entity is an individual who has entered bankruptcy.

The effect of the second and third exceptions listed above is that employees of State and local Governments are excluded from benefiting from the JobKeeper scheme.

The scheme is not limited to companies. Partnerships, trusts, not for profit organisations, sole traders and other legal entities are eligible to participate in the scheme. Special rules apply to payments to business owners and directors. 

• Most employers will be eligible if their business turnover falls by 30% 

In order to be eligible for JobKeeper payments, the projected turnover of the employer's business must fall by 30% as compared to the same period last year. In order to register for the scheme, a business must self assess that it has had or will have the necessary decline in turnover.  

A 50% turnover decline is required for businesses with revenue of AUD$1 billion or more.

Charities need suffer only a 15% decline in order to be eligible.

The turnover calculation is based on GST turnover, even if the employer is not registered for GST. The ATO has released detailed rules about calculations that must be made, and what documents and supporting evidence is needed.

• Employees need to have been engaged by the employer as at 1 March 2020. This includes full-time and part-time employees. Casual employees are only eligible if they had been employed on a regular basis for at least 12 months prior to 1 March 2020.

Eligible employees must be currently employed by the employer for the fortnights it claims for (including those employees who are stood down or re-hired). The subsidy cannot be claimed for employees who left employment before 1 March 2020.

Employees are only eligible if they are older than 16 and were Australian residents on 1 March 2020.

Many employers in the "gig economy" who are casual employees - including in hospitality, food services, retail and tourism - will be unable to benefit from the scheme if they are "recent hires" i.e. have been employed as casuals for less than 12 months as at 30 March 2020. 

Key legal obligations for participating employers

• Each employee must be paid at least AUD $1,500 per fortnight before tax.

Each employee in respect of whom an employer receives a JobKeeper payment must be paid at least $1,500 per fortnight before tax by the employer. This is the case even if the employee would normally receive less than $1,500 per fortnight.  The employer cannot keep the difference between the JobKeeper subsidy and the employee's usual wages. In effect, the wages of employees who usually earn below $1,500 per fortnight are increased to $1,500. 

It can be seen that for employees who earn less than $1,500 per fortnight, their continued employment through to 27 September 2020 essentially comes at no cost to the employer.

If an employer does not continue to pay their employees for each pay period, they will cease to qualify for the JobKeeper payments. For the first two fortnights (30 March – 12 April, 13 April – 26 April) wages can be paid late, provided they are paid by the employer by the end of April 2020.

• The JobKeeper payment can only be received by one employer for an individual

Only one employer can claim the JobKeeper payment in respect of a person. Where a person works multiple jobs, a choice will need to be made as to which employer receives the subsidy. The employee makes the choice. An employer cannot claim the JobKeeper subsidy without an employee's consent.  

If an employee is a long-term casual and has other permanent employment, they must choose the permanent employer.

• An "one in, all in" principle applies

If an employer decides to participate in the JobKeeper scheme, it must nominate all of its eligible employees. The employer cannot choose to nominate only some eligible employees. However, individual eligible employees can choose not to participate.

• Tax must still be deducted on employee's wages

No deduction for JobKeeper payments received is made when calculating and deducting PAYG tax payments on employee's wages.

• Superannuation is not payable on "top up" payments 

New rules are being introduced by the Government with the intention to not require the superannuation guarantee to be paid on additional payments that are made to employees as a result of JobKeeper payments.

JobKeeper Enabling Directions

The JobKeeper scheme gives eligible employers the authority to make what are described as "JobKeeper Enabling Directions" in respect of eligible employees. These directions are designed to provide greater flexibiliity to employers to manage the hours, duties and location of their workforce in the face of the significant Covid-19 related challenges.

JobKeeper Enabling Directions available to eligible employers include: 

• standing down employees (including reducing days and hours)
• changing the duties performed by the employee
• changing the employee’s location of work.

If you need legal assistance in relation to the JobKeeper scheme, please contact Damian Quail in our office.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Vying for social media engagement: More risk than reward?

The recent Court decision in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 766 (the Voller case) highlights a danger inherent in using social media - social media publications invite comments from a wide variety of users, with a very real risk that some of those comments may convey a defamatory meaning. Following the decision in Voller, businesses are at risk of being held liable for defamatory comments posted by third party users who engage with social media content.  

Background

In Voller, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) considered a defamation claim commenced by Dylan Voller, a former detainee at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. Mr Voller alleged that Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (the publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and Sky News Australia/The Bolt Report, respectively) (the Defendants) were responsible for defamatory comments posted by third-party Facebook users on stories published by those Defendants to their Facebook pages.

Liability for Defamation and the issue of “Publication” 

Under Australian law, a person is liable for defamation if the material is published to one or more third parties, the material identifies a person and the material conveys a defamatory meaning.

The NSWSC was principally concerned as to whether the Defendants were the "publishers" of third party comments in response to the Defendant's news stories. 

Decision

The NSWSC found that the Defendants were not mere conduits of the Facebook comments, but rather had encouraged Facebook users to make comments in order to further the Defendant's own commercial interests.  The first time each defamatory comment was published in comprehensible form was as a comment attached to each Defendant’s relevant news story.  Given that the publication carrying the defamatory meaning (being the Facebook comment) was viewed by the public in relation to that news publication, it was the Defendants that were the first and primary publishers of the defamatory comment. 

Reason for Decision

In reaching the decision, Justice Rothman took account of the ability of each Defendant’s Facebook administrator to forbid, filter or hide comments, thereby giving the Defendants the power to control the content of the articles and the comments being published.  The Court found that the administrators held the “final right of approval” before comments were made public. That element of control over the publication demonstrated that the Defendants participated in the broadcast of the defamatory material, in failing to exercise their administrative controls and filter the comments appearing under their publications.  His Honour held that by operating their Facebook pages for a commercial purpose, and inviting user participation without exercising the appropriate controls, the Defendants had promoted the defamatory material by ratifying its presence and publication.  For this reason, the defence of innocent dissemination could not apply.

His Honour also attached importance to the fact that the Defendants could delay publication of user comments and monitor whether any were defamatory before releasing them to the general public. This was considered more important than the counter argument that there was a significant time cost in doing so.  

It was considered irrelevant that social media is used to engage third party users and to invite comment and interaction with posts, rather that to simply disseminate information. It was also no defence that it would be difficult to monitor numerous comments being published by third party users over long periods of time (for example, third party users often comment on posts days after the initial post is published).

What does this mean for public publishers on social media? 

This decision highlights for administrators of public social media pages the implications of inviting public comment on their posts.

Media companies and other businesses that utilise social media to promote their commercial interests should pause to consider how they can limit their liability for third party defamatory comments.

Businesses should also consider implementing moderating procedures, such as reviewing comments for factual accuracy or malicious content before the comments are displayed as a comment under the primary publication.

If preventative strategies are to be implemented, the strategies should account for any content posted within the prior 12 months, given the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) permits a person to commence a defamation action within 12 months of publication of the defamatory material.

Reviewing third party comments on existing publications, as well as monitoring, hiding and blocking defamatory comments on future publications, will be necessary for any businesses with a social media presence, at least pending an appeal of the decision in Voller. 

For further information on defamation and managing your risk, please contract Damian Dinelli on 9481 2040 or at damian.dinelli@whlaw.com.au. 

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Peanut Butter Battle of Jars and Trade Marks

Peanut butter is big business in Australia.  In 2017 the Australian peanut butter market was worth $110 million in annual sales. A brand recognisable to many Australians - Kraft peanut butter - has been available for purchase in Australia since 1935.

The Federal Court recently handed down judgment in a dispute between Bega Cheese Limited and Kraft Foods Group over the appearance of product packaging (trade dress, also known as “get up”) and copyright in a “peanut butter jar with a yellow lid and a yellow label with a blue or red peanut device” (Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited (No 8) [2019] FCA 593).

The background to the dispute is complicated and involved various restructurings, licence agreements and assignments between the parties. In 2017 Bega bought the peanut butter business and associated assets and goodwill from Mondelez Australia (Foods) Ltd, a subsidiary within the global Kraft Foods group. After the sale was concluded Kraft temporarily exited the peanut butter market in Australia. Subsequently Kraft returned and wanted to continue to use the distinctive colours and get up previously used for Kraft branded peanut butter products, as depicted below.

However, after closing off the deal between Bega and Mondelez, Bega had commenced selling Bega branded peanut butter products using a trade dress that Kraft claimed constituted misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of contract, passing off and trade mark infringement. Bega countersued and alleged that Kraft had infringed their intellectual property rights and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. Bega claimed that as part of the deal with Mondelez, Bega had bought the right to use the distinctive trade dress, including the goodwill associated with it. Bega’s peanut butter jars are shown below.
 

                                                                                                   
On 1 May 2019 the Federal Court ruled in favour of Bega, finding that it had the right to use the distinctive peanut butter trade dress. The Court confirmed that the sale or licensing of unregistered trade marks is not possible without assigning the underlying goodwill of the business. It came to the conclusion that Bega had acquired all rights to the peanut butter trade dress, including the underlying goodwill, and could continue using it in relation to its peanut butter. The Court also awarded damages against Kraft/Heinz for infringing Bega’s intellectual property.

A key factor in the Court’s decision was the fact that the trade dress previously owned by Kraft could have been protected as a registered trade mark but it had never in fact been registered. The Court fight between Bega and Kraft could likely have been avoided if a registered trade mark had been obtained. Instead, both sides had to go to Court to try prove that they had exclusive rights to the use of the unregistered trade mark.

Benefit of registering trade marks

The case is a timely reminder of the value of a registered trade mark.  If Kraft had registered the distinctive Kraft peanut butter trade dress as a trade mark it would have been in a much stronger position to retain rights in its intellectual property.

In addition to trade dress, trade marks can also be a shape (the Coca Cola bottle), a colour (purple for Cadbury chocolates or the orange colour of Veuve Clicquot’s champagne), a sound (the Nokia ring tone) and even a scent (eucalyptus scented golf tees).

Colour, shape, lids, jars and trade dress are important features and should be protected as registered trade marks.

The best protection by far is to register the trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). This solution is low cost, and results in an Australia-wide, potentially perpetual, statutory monopoly in the brand. Also, once a mark is registered, enforcement is relatively simple as you don’t need to prove title.

A search of the trade mark register shows that Bega has now filed two trade mark applications to protect the trade dress in the smooth and crunchy versions of the peanut butter.

                                                                                                                      
  
For further information on how these changes may impact on your business please contact Madeleen Rousseau, Special Counsel, on +61 8 9481 2040 or madeleen.rousseau@whlaw.com.au.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.