Brands are among a company’s most valuable assets – they embody reputation and consumer trust. Two recent Australian court decisions underscore how closely courts guard against brand confusion, even when businesses operate online or use seemingly different names. These cases remind retailers (whether online or brick-and-mortar) that misleading consumers or infringing on a competitor’s brand can lead to serious legal trouble. 

Below, we provide a concise analysis of each case – Jackson's Drawing Supplies v Jackson’s Art Supplies and Bed Bath ‘N’ Table v Global Retail Brands Australia – focusing on the conduct deemed misleading or infringing, the key factors considered by the courts, and practical lessons to retailers avoid similar traps. 

Jacksons Drawing Supplies v Jackson’s Art Supplies

This case involved two art supply retailers using the name “Jackson’s.” The Australian company, Jacksons Drawing Supplies (JDS) claimed that the UK-based Jackson’s Art Supplies (JAS) misled consumers and infringed on its goodwill by operating under a confusingly similar name in Australia. JAS was a UK-based company with no physical stores in Australia, but launched an Australia-focused online store – complete with an Australian phone number and a local warehouse that ships goods to Australian customers. The Federal Court ultimately found that JAS’s operation of its Australian-facing website:

• breached Australian Consumer Law (ACL), including by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations; and
   
• amounted to passing off. 

In short, even without a physical shopfront in Australia, JAS’s online activities in Australia created a misleading impression that it was associated with JDS or was an Australian business, thereby “blurring the lines” for consumers.

In reaching this decision, the Court looked at several critical factors to determine why JAS’s conduct was misleading:

• Both companies traded under “Jackson’s” names in the art supplies market, which would sound identical to consumers aside from a minor punctuation difference and a slight difference in the use of the word “drawing” as opposed to “art” in the names of the companies. This high similarity increased the risk of confusion to customers.
   
• Both businesses sold art and drawing supplies, which meant they were effectively competing for the same customers, heightening the chances of mistaken belief that the two “Jacksons” were related.
   
• JAS’s website was tailored for Australian customers, featuring an Australian subdomain or webpage, prices in Australian dollars, a local contact number, and references to an Australian location. These elements signaled to ordinary consumers that JAS was a local Australian business in competition with JDS or was otherwise somehow connected to or associated with JDS.
   
• JDS had an established reputation in parts of Australia dating back a number of decades, which made any confusion caused to customers more harmful.

Together, these factors caused the Court to form the view that JAS’s online presence in Australia would likely mislead consumers into thinking its business was associated with JDS, breaching the ACL. Notably, the Court stressed that a foreign company can breach Australian consumer and trade mark laws purely through online commerce targeting Australia – a physical local store or presence is not required to be liable for misleading or deceptive conduct.

Bed Bath ‘N’ Table v Global Retail Brands Australia 

This High Court case, dubbed by some commentators as a true “battle of the brands”, involved Bed Bath ‘N’ Table (BBNT), a well-known Australian retail chain in “soft homewares” (bedding, bath linens, home decor), and a rival chain, Global Retail Brands Australia (GRBA). In 2021, GRBA launched new stores under the name “House Bed & Bath”, using that phrase on store signage, websites, social media, till receipts, advertisements, and even staff name badges. BBNT commenced proceedings, claiming this conduct infringed its registered “Bed Bath ’N’ Table” trade mark and misled consumers in breach of ACL s18.

In the initial trial, Justice Rofé found that “House Bed & Bath” did not infringe BBNT’s trade mark – as the two marks weren’t deemed “substantially identical or deceptively similar” under trade mark law. Notably, the word “HOUSE” at the start of GRBA’s name gave House Bed & Bath a distinct overall impression, and the Court found consumers were unlikely to confuse it with the full Bed Bath ’N’ Table mark. However, the Judge found the same conduct to be misleading or deceptive under the ACL, as the way that GRBA presented “House Bed & Bath” in the marketplace was likely to mislead consumers into thinking the two businesses were associated, especially given the two stores traded in the same goods. In late 2025, the High Court agreed with this decision, upholding the trial judge’s finding of misleading conduct even though the trade mark infringement claim failed. This outcome confirms that even if a new brand doesn’t technically infringe a trade mark, it can still violate consumer law by creating a misleading or deceptive impression in the market.

In finding the conduct misleading and deceptive, the Court highlighted several factors:

• BBNT had operated since 1976 and was a dominant, well-established name in Australian homewares retail, known nationwide for its distinctive “Bed Bath ’N’ Table” brand and store look. For decades, no other major retailer used the words “bed” and “bath” together on storefronts, making BBNT’s name highly recognisable to consumers in that sector.
   
• GRBA’s chosen name “House Bed & Bath” replicated two of the three key words of BBNT’s brand. Additionally, GRBA adopted a similar “Hamptons”-style store design and signage for its House Bed & Bath stores, echoing BBNT’s look and feel. This combination of a similar name and visual presentation in the same market segment created a strong suggestion of a connection between the businesses.
   
• Some House Bed & Bath stores opened in close proximity to existing Bed Bath ’N’ Table stores, directly positioning the new brand alongside the incumbent. The Court considered the broader context, including how an ordinary consumer might perceive two homeware stores with such similar names operating in the same shopping areas or centres. In this context, consumers could easily assume “House Bed & Bath” was a spinoff or affiliate of the well-known Bed Bath ’N’ Table chain.
   
• Internal GRBA documents showed it was aware of BBNT’s brand and despite this knowledge, pressed on with the “House Bed & Bath” branding despite the obvious resemblance. This was described as a “willful blindness” to the risk of confusion. The High Court noted that such evidence of a trader’s awareness of a competitor can indicate they anticipated benefiting from the confusion, supporting the finding that deception was likely.

Given all these factors, the High Court held that GRBA’s use of “House Bed & Bath” was likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing there was an affiliation with BBNT, breaching s18 of the ACL. This case provides an important reminder for businesses and illustrates that Australian courts will carefully scrutinise not just names, but the overall context of marketing and branding when assessing misleading conduct.

Practical Lessons 

Given all these factors, the High Court held that GRBA’s use of “House Bed & Bath” was likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing there was an affiliation with BBNT, breaching s18 of the ACL. This case provides an important reminder for businesses and illustrates that Australian courts will carefully scrutinise not just names, but the overall context of marketing and branding when assessing misleading conduct.