Sweet Victory In Fight To End Cadbury's Purple Reign

The Age

Saturday April 12, 2008

Adrian Lowe, With AAP

CHOCOLATE has left a bitter taste in the mouths of two of its manufacturers in a legal dispute that has spanned more than five years and is set to continue.

The Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday dismissed an appeal brought by Cadbury against an earlier ruling relating to Darrell Lea's use of purple in packaging and store fittings. Cadbury used the Trade Practices Act to allege the shade its competitor used was misleading and deceptive conduct.

Judge Peter Heerey ruled that while there was a wide awareness among consumers of Cadbury's use of dark purple for certain chocolates, it did not have an exclusive reputation for the dark purple for chocolate. Other competitors, such as Nestle, had used a similar shade of purple with Cadbury's knowledge.

Describing the ruling as "a victory for common sense", Darrell Lea director Michael Lea said: "Today's decision was a real joy."

But Cadbury said it would lodge a further appeal.

The legal stoush began in December 2002 when Cadbury demanded Darrell Lea stop using the shade of purple, that it be removed from store fittings and staff uniforms, and that packaging with the colour should be removed from stores and destroyed, Darrell Lea's legal team said yesterday.

Darrell Lea signalled it would pursue its costs from Cadbury. The costs for the matter combined are said to be between $4 million and $5 million.

Cadbury Schweppes managing director Mark Callaghan said his company had deliberately established a connection between the shade of purple and Cadbury chocolate.

"We remain totally committed to protecting our brand identity and Cadbury will appeal this decision," he said. -- With AAP

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home