Winery granted injunction

Press, 29 February 1984, Page 8

Winery granted injunction

PA Auckland Montana Wines has been granted an interim injunction preventing Villa Maria Wines from using advertisements featuring both products and comparing the wines. In a reserved decision, Mr Justice Casey has granted the court order sought by Montana Wines during a hearing in the High Court at Auckland earlier in the month. His Honour noted that late last year Villa Maria had decided on an advertising campaign of a type which, it was believed, had not been seen in New Zealand. “They published in a number of ‘up market’ magazines three advertisements in which a bottle ofytheir

product appears in company with a bottle clearly identified as a Montana wine, showing its name and part of its label, and discussing the qualities of the two wines in the accompanying text in a way which praises the qualities of both, and suggesting there is nothing between them but the personal preference of the consumer.” While nothing in the advertisement had suggested a connection in proprietorship between the two wines, Montana had contended that the casual reader would gain the impression that there was some trade relationship between Montana and Villa Maria. His Honour said the president of the Advertising Institute of New Zealand had

been critical of the advertisements and considered them not only misleading but contrary to the industry’s code of ethics for alcoholic beverages. “In his view it was an attempt by Villa Maria to associate itself with the prestige and good will of Montana and thereby increase its sales by the colloquial method of ‘bootstrapping,’ ” said his Honour. He said earlier in his judgment that the facts were relatively clear in that Montana was a recognised market leader in the wine industry and Villa Maria had a much smaller business but had also won a number of prizes for is products. industry as a whole

is facing market problems because of the increasing volume of production against a static market for wine and the only way sales can be increased is at the expense of some other producer’s share of this market.” His Honour said that it was a different situation from the usual comparative advertising encountered in New Zealand in which one trader asserted the superiority of its goods. Villa Maria and its advisers must have known it was embarking on a new type of advertising for New Zealand and that a strong reaction by the plaintiff was inevitable, said his Honour. Costs of ?1500 were awarded to Montana