Australian Olympic Committee v Telstra: appeal dismissed

In Australian Olympic Committee, Inc. v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2016] FCA 857 (29 July 2016), the Honourable Justice Wigney dismissed an application by the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) alleging that during the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Telstra:

• breached the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth) by using protected Olympic expressions in Telstra advertisements; and
• engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) by falsely representing in Telstra advertisements that Telstra had a sponsorship-like arrangement with the Olympic Games, or Olympic bodies.

This week in Australian Olympic Committee, Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 165 (25 October 2017), the Full Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Nicholas and Burley JJ) upheld the decision of the primary judge.

The Full Federal Court said:

In the present case given the nature of the issues raised, it seems to us that his Honour’s views on the effect of the Telstra advertisements and the representations and suggestions they conveyed should be given considerable weight unless those views are shown to be affected by some relevant error of law or fact… the question is whether, after conducting a real review of the evidence at trial and of the primary judge’s reasons for judgment, the Full Court concludes that his Honour has fallen into error.

The Full Federal Court examined the ten grounds upon which the AOC contended that the primary judge fell into error, the evidence, and the primary judge’s reasons for judgment. The Full Federal Court concluded that no error had been demonstrated and dismissed the appeal with costs.

You can read Australian Olympic Committee, Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 165 (25 October 2017) here, and the first instance decision here.