Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 DECEMBER 2025

Not Deceptively Similar, Still Deceptive – High Court Judgment In Bed Bath 'N' Table.

Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Contributor
Piper Alderman

Piper Alderman

Helping shape the future of business in Australia with practical, commercial and cutting-edge legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Piper Alderman

This case demonstrates that even where the conduct does not infringe a registered trade mark, the conduct can still be considered misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in breach of the ACL.

AustraliaConsumer Protection

The High Court of Australia has overturned the Full Federal Court's decision and reinstated the orders of the primary judge, Rofe J. In the Federal Court, Rofe J held that Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd's use of the mark "HOUSE BED & BATH" did not infringe Bed Bath 'N' Table's registered trade mark "BED BATH N' TABLE" under section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), finding the marks were neither substantially identical nor deceptively similar. However Rofe J found, in its manner of use of the words "HOUSE BED & BATH", Global Brands engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

Background

Bed Bath 'N' Table (BBNT) has been operating in Australia since 1976 and operates stores selling homewares under the registered trade mark "BED BATH N' TABLE". Global Retails Brands Australia Pty Ltd (GRBA) owns a business that sells kitchenware and hard homewares, utilising a trade mark which incorporates the

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.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from