Facts: McWilliam's Wines (McWilliams) advertised a large cask of wine under the name 'Big Mac'. McDonald's System of Australia (McDonalds) marketed a large hamburger under the same name. McDonalds claimed that McWilliams' use of the name 'Big Mac' was misleading conduct in breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act because consumers might think the 'Big Mac' cask of wine was a McDonald's product.
Issue: Was McWilliams' conduct likely to mislead consumers to believe something that was untrue?
Decision: McWilliams' conduct was not likely to be the cause of any confusion that might arise in the minds of consumers.
Reason: Potential consumers of the McWilliams' product might be confused or wonder whether there was a business connection between McWilliams and McDonalds, but the advertisement did not in any way actually suggest such a connection. If anyone did make a mistake of the type that McDonalds suggested, it would not be because of McWilliams' conduct. Accordingly, there was no misleading conduct by McWilliams.
Note: Although this case concerns s 52 of the Trade Practices Act, it continues to be relevant with regard to the interpretation and application of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.