ARTICLE · 12 MAY 2024

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

McDonald's "beef" with Hungry Jacks' deceptive conduct

Pragma Lawyers

Explore more from Pragma Lawyers

The key question that the Court was to determine was whether the representations were likely to mislead or deceive.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Tony Di Francesco

Author LinkedIn connections

The Federal Court recently delivered judgment in a claim brought by McDonald's, against Burger King's Australian franchisee, Hungry Jacks, on the grounds of trademark infringement, as well as misleading deceptive conduct. The trademark infringement arose from the introduction by Hungry Jacks in early 2020 of two burgers known as the BIG JACK and the MEGA JACK. McDonald's claimed that the naming of these burgers infringed the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and their trademarks: BIG MAC and MEGA MAC. Although McDonald's was unsuccessful in its trademark infringement claim, its claim under the Australian Consumer Law was upheld by Burley J.

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in the Australian Consumer Law

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Carroll & O'Dea

How Long Does Unpaid Debt Stay On A Credit Report In Australia?

AustraliaConsumer Protection

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Bartier Perry Solicitors

ACCC Takes Amazon AU To The Federal Court Of Australia Alleging Its Annual Amazon Prime Video Subscription Contract Contains Unfair Contract Terms

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Unfair Contract Terms Penalties And The Updated UCT Regime: What Your Business Needs To Know

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Coleman Greig Lawyers

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

Comparative Guide

Gambling Law

Comparative Guide

Product Liability

See more popular content from

Consumer Protection

What Is The 2026 Ban On Credit Card Surcharges?

From 1 October 2026, Visa, Mastercard and eftpos can ban businesses from adding surcharges to card transactions, enforced through merchant agreements.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Misleading Pricing Under Australian Consumer Law

Misleading pricing occurs when a business creates a false or misleading impression about the true cost of goods or services, even where the advertised price is technically correct. Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses must ensure consumers can understand the real price they will be required to pay, including any unavoidable fees, charges, surcharges or conditions affecting price.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Stonegate Legal

How Long Does Unpaid Debt Stay On A Credit Report In Australia?

Understanding how long unpaid debts remain on Australian credit reports is crucial for managing financial reputation and planning recovery from financial difficulty. This comprehensive guide examines retention periods for defaults, court judgments, bankruptcy information, and other credit listings, while explaining the regulatory framework that governs credit reporting in Australia.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

ACCC cracks down on misleading consumer guarantees and return rights for faulty goods

Recent cases demonstrate the importance of ensuring that businesses do not mislead consumers. Tips on how to comply with the ACL.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Holding Redlich

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Bartier Perry Solicitors

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Carroll & O'Dea

Spamming and the Spam Act

A reminder that there is a Spam Act which sets out rules relating to spam messages as explained here.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Pointon Partners

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Sometimes a third party who relies on misleading & deceptive conduct may be entitled to damages.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

How misleading claims about your products could cost you!

The ACCC has made it clear that misleading product descriptions will result in fines and orders for remedial action.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

ACCC Takes Amazon AU To The Federal Court Of Australia Alleging Its Annual Amazon Prime Video Subscription Contract Contains Unfair Contract Terms

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has initiated Federal Court proceedings against Amazon AU, alleging that subscription contracts for Amazon Prime contain unfair terms allowing significant service changes...

AustraliaConsumer Protection