Prezzee Pty Ltd v Epay Australia Pty Ltd

Prezzee and Epay were both operating in the gift card market, but they came to the dispute with different branding histories. Prezzee owned multiple Australian registered trade marks comprising or including the word “Prezzee” for gift card and gift voucher related goods and services. The court recorded that Prezzee had used one or more of those marks as a badge of origin for digital gift card goods or services.

Epay had a different background. Through its New Zealand business, it had acquired the “Prezzy Card” Visa gift card business from Kiwi Bank in late 2019. That New Zealand business had been operating since 2006. Epay also held Australian registrations using the word “Giftzzy”. In 2024, Epay formed an intention to launch an Australian preloaded cash card using the same Visa payment system and then launched the “Giftzzy Card” in Australia in August 2025.

The Australian launch is what triggered the urgent court fight. Although “Giftzzy Card” was the prominent branding on the physical card and packaging, the phrase “Powered by Prezzy Card” also appeared on the face of the cards, in marketing materials and in social media posts. Prezzee said that use of “Prezzy” in Australia infringed its registered rights and also supported passing off and Australian Consumer Law claims. It moved urgently for interlocutory relief to stop the conduct before the final trial.

The court's reasons set out a practical timeline that business owners should pay attention to. In late 2024, there were already communications between the parties about Epay's plans and possible cooperation. Prezzee's CEO said Prezzee had previously made clear that it would not tolerate third-party operations under “Prezzy” in Australia and would continue to oppose attempts to launch “Prezzy” here. There was also evidence of earlier 2020 and 2021 events involving demands that the New Zealand Prezzy Card should not be purchasable or redeemable in Australia.

On 30 August 2024, Prezzee's lawyers wrote to Epay asserting that use of the word “Prezzy” in connection with cards in Australia would breach Prezzee's intellectual property rights. Further correspondence followed in 2025. Epay's regional managing director said that after receiving a letter of demand on 30 September 2025, he authorised removal of “Powered by Prezzy Card” from marketing materials and virtual Giftzzy cards and stopped further production of physical cards featuring that phrase.

But the problem had not disappeared. The court recorded that as at 9 October 2025, a physical Giftzzy card purchased from Epay's website still carried “Powered by Prezzy Card” on the packaging and on the card itself. Social media posts using the phrase also remained online until the day of the hearing, although Epay's counsel said they were then removed or in the process of being removed. By the time of the urgent hearing, the main practical focus was the remaining physical cards still in circulation.

This was not the final trial. The court was deciding whether to grant interlocutory injunctions pending the hearing and determination of the proceeding. The reasons restate the usual test. Prezzee had to show a serious question to be tried about its entitlement to final relief and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction in the terms sought.

In trade mark terms, the extract shows the court was considering whether Epay had used the word “Prezzy” as a trade mark, especially in the phrase “Powered by Prezzy Card”, and how Prezzee's registrations mapped onto the goods and services in issue. The reasons also specifically note that the elements of infringement under section 120(1) and section 120(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) differ, which mattered to the way the infringement case was framed.

The court also had to weigh practical prejudice on both sides. Prezzee relied on alleged harm to its commercial reputation and goodwill associated with the Prezzee marks and said damages would not be an adequate remedy if the conduct continued. Epay pointed to the cost and difficulty of retrieving cards from about 1,800 retailers, the disruption that retailer notices could cause, and the operational challenge of disabling activation processing. The reasons emphasise that these questions are linked. The apparent strength of the case and the practical consequences of granting or refusing relief must be considered together.

Charlesworth J granted interlocutory relief. The catchwords and orders record that the balance of convenience favoured Prezzee and that an injunction was granted. Pending the hearing and determination of the proceeding, or unless the court otherwise ordered, Epay was restrained from supplying or selling, offering to supply or sell, or advertising or promoting for supply or sale, goods or services that were the same as, of the same description as, or closely related to the goods and services covered by the Prezzee trade marks under or by reference to the signs “Prezzy”, “Prezzy Card” or “Powered by Prezzy Card”.

The orders went beyond a simple restraint. Epay was required to take steps to remove from circulation or sale any products bearing those signs. Those steps included sending an email to all retailers of Giftzzy cards by noon on 12 December 2025 in a specified form, disabling the processing of any transaction for activation of the relevant Giftzzy cards as soon as practicable and no later than 5.00 pm on 15 December 2025 to the extent technically feasible, and physically retrieving all Giftzzy cards bearing “Powered by Prezzy Card” from retailers by 30 January 2026.

A director of Epay also had to file and serve an affidavit by noon on 18 December 2025 dealing with compliance with the retailer email and disablement steps. Epay was given liberty to apply for variation or revocation of the disablement requirement on the ground that disablement was not technically feasible, provided that liberty was exercised by 4.00 pm on 15 December 2025. Costs were reserved, and a further case management hearing was listed for 17 December 2025.

The orders also record an important standard feature of interlocutory relief. Prezzee gave the usual undertaking as to damages, meaning it undertook to submit to any order the court considered just for compensation to any person adversely affected by the interlocutory order.

There are several practical messages in this decision. First, a business cannot assume that a secondary phrase is harmless because the main brand is different or more prominent. The extract records that “Giftzzy Card” was prominent and “Powered by Prezzy Card” was smaller and in the corner, yet the disputed phrase still became central to the injunction. If a phrase is used on the product itself, on packaging and in promotion, it may still be treated as commercially significant.

Second, overseas rights and history do not remove Australian risk. Epay had a New Zealand “Prezzy Card” business and New Zealand registrations using “Prezzy”, but the urgent Australian dispute still turned on Prezzee's Australian registered rights and the Australian launch conduct. Businesses expanding from New Zealand or elsewhere should run a separate Australian clearance exercise for names, taglines, packaging and digital assets.

Third, warning letters matter. The reasons record earlier objections and correspondence. Once a business has been put on notice, continuing use can increase the chance of urgent proceedings and make the practical consequences more severe. If stock is already in stores, the issue is no longer just legal. It becomes operational, technical and reputational.

Fourth, think about your distribution chain before launch. The evidence in this case dealt with thousands of retailers, activation terminals, retailer communications and the feasibility of disabling transactions. If your product can be activated, redeemed or distributed through third parties, you need a plan for how you would stop sales, contact retailers and isolate affected stock quickly if a dispute arises.

This was an urgent interlocutory decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the General Division. The judgment was given on 10 December 2025 and the written reasons were published on 22 December 2025. The case was not finally determined by these reasons. The orders operated pending the hearing and determination of the proceeding or further order.

That distinction matters. Interlocutory findings are provisional. They can still be commercially decisive because they affect what a business can do immediately, but they are not the final adjudication of all infringement, passing off and Australian Consumer Law issues in the proceeding.

This page is based on the published Federal Court reasons and orders for Prezzee Pty Ltd v Epay Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1662. The available text gives detailed information about the parties' branding, the launch, prior correspondence, the interlocutory test and the orders made. It also expressly records that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant and that the injunction was granted.

Some of the reasons available here are truncated, so this page should be read as a practical summary of the interlocutory decision rather than a complete account of every nuance in the court's reasoning. The final outcome of the broader proceeding is not determined by this decision alone.