Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd (No 2)

Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1127 is a Federal Court decision about final relief after earlier findings of misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations under the Australian Consumer Law, and passing off. The court had already decided liability in an earlier judgment. This later decision dealt with what declarations, injunctions, an inquiry as to pecuniary relief and costs orders should follow.

For business owners, the case is a practical warning about online branding and localisation. If an Australia-facing website, local phone number, local warehouse references and customer service arrangements combine to suggest that your business is the same as, or connected with, an established Australian trader, the court may intervene in a very specific way. Here, the court ordered a tightly prescribed disclaimer regime and restrained operation of the relevant Australia-facing website arrangements unless that disclaimer was displayed in the required form.

The dispute involved an Australian business, Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd, and businesses using the Jackson's Art name. The court's recap says that from October 2018 the first respondent offered arts and craft products on an Australian-specific part of its website. The site was tailored to Australian users. It used Australian-specific content, Australian dollars as the default currency, and references to Australian operations. The judgment also refers to prominent and frequent display of the Australian flag and the word AUSTRALIA.

Those local signals were not limited to website styling. The site referred to Australian operations, including an Australian place of business, an Australian telephone number, Australian operating hours and information about Australian tax, customs fees and duty charges. The second respondent, a majority-owned subsidiary, fulfilled sales from an Australian address and provided customer service in Australia under and by reference to the Jackson's names. The court said that, in context, this conduct was likely to convey to some consumers that they were dealing with an Australian Jackson's that would be taken to be the applicant.

The court also noted that there had been a small number of telephone sales by reference to the Jackson's names over a four month period from October 2022. So the dispute was not confined to website pages alone. It also involved how the business presented itself through local fulfilment and customer contact channels.

By the time of the No 2 judgment, the main fight was no longer about whether there had been contraventions. The court had already found that the first and second respondents had breached section 18 and section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law and had engaged in passing off. The remaining questions were practical and commercially important: what declarations should be made, what injunction should be imposed, how the disclaimer should work, whether the respondents had to link to the applicant's website, and who should pay costs.

The No 2 judgment was mainly about relief. The court had to decide the proper form of declarations and injunctive relief after liability had already been established. It also had to decide costs, including the effect of settlement offers and the fact that different parties had mixed success.

The practical dispute about the injunction was detailed. The parties broadly agreed that the respondents should be restrained from operating the Australia-facing site unless a disclaimer was displayed. But they disagreed about most of the mechanics. The court had to decide whether the injunction should only apply to the current URL or also to any other website, subdirectory or subdomain with similar Australian characteristics. It had to decide the exact wording of the disclaimer. It had to decide whether the disclaimer should appear in a pop-up, whether it should also appear elsewhere on the site, how often users should see it, and whether users should have to acknowledge it before accessing the site.

The court also considered expert evidence about website design and user attention. That evidence dealt with issues such as banner blindness, sticky headers, pop-ups, repeated exposure and hyperlinking. This is important for businesses because it shows that legal disputes about misleading conduct can turn on practical questions of user experience and digital design, not just legal drafting.

Another issue was whether the disclaimer should include a hyperlink to the applicant's website. The applicant wanted wording that would make it easier for users who had intended to visit the Australian company's site to click through. The respondents resisted that. The court had to decide whether that extra step was necessary to protect consumers or whether it went beyond what was needed.

Finally, the court had to deal with costs. The judgment records that the applicant's rejection of a Calderbank offer from the first and second respondents was not unreasonable, but its rejection of offers from the third and fourth respondents was unreasonable. That mattered because costs consequences can become substantial even where the main legal findings have already been made.

The court made declarations that each of the first and second respondents, since October 2018 and April 2022 respectively, had contravened section 18, section 29(1)(g) and section 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law and had engaged in passing off. The declarations identified the misleading representations found by the court. These included representations that the first and second respondents were the applicant, were associated with or endorsed, approved, licensed or sponsored by the applicant, that the Australia-specific subdomain was the applicant's website or associated with it, and that the Australian telephone number was the applicant's number or associated with it.

The court then made a permanent injunction operating on and from 26 September 2025. From that date, the first and second respondents were restrained, without the applicant's licence or consent, from operating in trade or commerce in connection with the offering for sale or sale of art or craft products under or by reference to the names or marks JACKSON'S and or JACKSON'S ART SUPPLIES, or any substantially identical or deceptively similar name or mark, the identified Australia-specific subdirectory and any other website, subdirectory or subdomain with one or more specified Australian characteristics, unless the prescribed disclaimer was displayed in the required way.

The specified Australian characteristics were broad enough to stop the injunction being defeated by a simple URL change. They included being an online store with content specific to Australia, Australian dollars as the default currency, and references to Australian operations such as an Australian place of business, an Australian telephone number, Australian operating hours or information about Australian tax, customs fees and duty charges.

The disclaimer wording ordered by the court was: Please note: this website is not affiliated with the Australian company Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd or its website jacksons.com.au.

The court required that disclaimer to appear clearly, prominently and legibly in a pop-up when a user visited the enjoined website at least once in any given browser session. The pop-up had to prevent access to the rest of the site until the user clicked a checkbox acknowledging the disclaimer. The court also required the disclaimer to appear at or near the bottom of each page on the enjoined website in a font size no smaller than the body text on the page. The disclaimer was not to hyperlink to jacksons.com.au.

The court refused to require publication of the disclaimer in other media. It also refused to require a hyperlink to the applicant's website. The judge said injunctive relief must be limited to what is necessary in the circumstances of the particular case. In the court's view, the consumer protection purpose was served by disabusing users of the mistaken impression. Making it easier for them to find the applicant online was a different objective.

The court ordered an inquiry as to pecuniary relief. It otherwise dismissed the applicant's amended originating application and dismissed the cross-claim. On costs, the first and second respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's and cross-respondents' costs of the proceeding up to and including the judgment hearing of 12 September 2025. Those costs were to be assessed in a lump sum with a 15% discount applied to the assessed sum, with assessment and procedural directions to be determined by a Registrar. The third and fourth respondents were given liberty to apply in relation to the costs orders.

This decision shows how courts approach confusion in an online retail setting. The legal risk did not arise from one sentence alone. It arose from the combined effect of a similar trading name, an Australia-facing web structure, Australian dollar pricing, references to Australian operations, an Australian phone number, local fulfilment and local customer service. Businesses often treat these as separate operational choices made by different teams. The court treated them as one overall customer impression.

That matters for any business expanding into Australia, especially where the brand is already used by another trader here or is close to an existing Australian name. A business may think it is simply localising a website for convenience. But if the localisation makes customers think they are dealing with an Australian business with a similar name, or a business endorsed by it, the risk is not theoretical. The court may make declarations, impose a permanent injunction, require a corrective disclaimer and order an inquiry as to pecuniary relief.

The case also shows the limits of disclaimers. A disclaimer can be part of the remedy, but it is not a simple cure-all. Here, the court required a very specific disclaimer, a pop-up that blocked access until acknowledged, and a repeat statement at or near the bottom of each page. That is a significant operational burden. It affects user flow, conversion and site design. Businesses should not assume they can launch first and fix confusion later with a small footer note.

Another practical lesson is that website architecture matters. The court did not confine the injunction to one exact URL. It extended the restraint to any other website, subdirectory or subdomain with specified Australian characteristics. That means a business cannot expect to avoid an order simply by moving the same presentation to a different path or subdomain.

Finally, the costs part of the judgment is a reminder that litigation strategy has commercial consequences. Settlement offers, mixed success between parties and the timing of offers can all affect who pays what. Even where a business loses on liability, there may still be arguments about the proper scope of relief and the right costs outcome. Those issues should be managed carefully and early.

The judgment is useful because it identifies the kinds of conduct that can matter in a misleading conduct and passing off case involving ecommerce. The court's recap focused on the Australia-specific subdomain, the use of Australian dollars as the default currency, references to Australian operations, the Australian telephone number, local fulfilment from an Australian address and customer service in Australia under the Jackson's names. It also referred to a small number of telephone sales made by reference to those names.

For business owners, this means risk can sit across multiple channels and documents. It may appear in website copy, page layout, subdomains, contact pages, support scripts, warehouse references, checkout settings and phone interactions. A legal review should therefore look beyond formal advertising claims and include the practical details of how the business appears to Australian customers in real use.

The judgment also shows that courts may engage with expert evidence about how users interact with websites. Here, the court had evidence about pop-ups, sticky headers, active attention, banner blindness and hyperlinking. That does not mean every dispute will require expert evidence, but it does mean businesses should not dismiss user experience design as legally irrelevant. If a dispute reaches court, design choices may become central to the remedy.

The judgment was delivered on 12 September 2025 by Jackson J in the Federal Court of Australia. The permanent restraint ordered by the court applies on and from 26 September 2025. The court also ordered an inquiry as to pecuniary relief, so the financial consequences were not fully resolved by this judgment alone.

This is a No 2 judgment, which means it should be read together with the earlier liability judgment for the full picture of the dispute. Even so, the relief judgment is highly practical because it shows exactly how the court translated liability findings into operational restrictions on an Australia-facing website and related conduct.

This page is based on the Federal Court judgment in Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1127. The judgment itself states that it assumes familiarity with the earlier main judgment, Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd [2025] FCA 530, and includes a brief recap of the earlier liability findings.

Because this decision is focused on relief and costs, it is strongest as a practical guide to injunctions, disclaimers, website localisation risk and litigation consequences. A fuller case note would also analyse the earlier liability judgment in detail.