Misleading company and brand names – is your use of a place of origin in your company or brand name

·

1 min read

In a significant case, the ACCC v King Island Meatworks and Cellars Pty Ltd, the Australian court ruled on the misleading use of a place of origin in a company name, highlighting the importance of accuracy in branding. Initially, King Island Meatworks sourced about 70% of its meat from King Island, aligning with its name. However, it later stopped this practice but continued using the King Island name, leading to ACCC's alleged misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The Court found that King Island Meatworks, by using the name “King Island”, implied that a significant portion of its meat came from King Island, which was not the case until 2011. This was deemed a breach of ACL, as the name suggested a connection to the region known for high-quality beef, thereby misleading consumers. The ruling required the company to take corrective actions and pay penalties.

This case underscores the legal implications of using a place of origin in branding. It emphasises the need for businesses to ensure that their names and marketing accurately reflect the source of their products. It sets a precedent that the branding might not be considered misleading if a significant portion of goods, suggested as 70% or more, comes from the named place of origin.