Bodum AG v H.A.G Import Corpn (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 238

This case was a commercial fight over lookalike double walled drinking glasses sold in Australia. Bodum had been selling its Pavina and Canteen double walled glasses in Australia since 2004. H.A.G Import Corpn, which used Maxwell & Williams as a trade mark for homewares including glassware, later sold competing products called Blend and Blend Conical.

The judgment says HAG decided to copy the shape and design features of two of Bodum’s bestselling glasses. That admission mattered, but it did not decide the case. Bodum’s registered design protection had already expired, so the dispute moved away from design registration and into the law of misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations and passing off.

Bodum’s position was that the copied shapes and overall presentation would lead consumers to think HAG’s products were Bodum products, associated with Bodum, part of Bodum’s range, or licensed, sponsored or approved by Bodum. HAG’s position was that copying the shape after expiry of design rights was lawful in principle and that its own branding, etching and packaging meant consumers would not be misled.

The court identified two main liability questions. First, whether HAG had engaged in the pleaded conduct and whether that conduct was misleading or deceptive within the meaning of the Australian Consumer Law. Secondly, whether the same conduct amounted to passing off.

Bodum pleaded a broad set of alleged representations. The judgment records allegations that HAG’s Blend glasses were the same as Bodum’s Pavina or Canteen glasses, were affiliated or associated with them, formed part of Bodum’s range, or were licensed, sponsored or approved by Bodum or by the source of BODUM branded glasses. Bodum also alleged that Maxwell & Williams was licensed by or associated with the source of the Bodum glasses.

The court also had to deal with the significance of HAG’s admitted intention to copy. Bodum argued that deliberate copying supported an inference that HAG was appropriating Bodum’s reputation and that the conduct was therefore likely to mislead. HAG responded that any such inference was displaced because the shapes did not have an independent reputation apart from the Bodum brand, consumers would not be misled given the logos and packaging, copying was permitted after design registrations lapsed, and the products were properly labelled.

The judgment shows that this was not a simple side-by-side visual comparison case. The court examined the products, their design features, the parties’ branding, packaging and the way the goods were sold. Bodum identified specific combinations of features for each range. For Pavina, those included the internal layer of glass with rounded bottom and curved sides, the external layer with curved sides tapering to a flat base with rounded corners, the rounded lip where the layers connect, and the visual effect of the inner glass appearing suspended inside the outer glass. For Canteen, the pleaded features included a narrower flat bottom and straight angled sides tapering outwards, together with the same suspended inner-glass effect and rounded lip.

The judgment also records features that appeared on Bodum’s glasses but not on HAG’s competing products. These included a Bodum logo on the base against a white background, statements about patents and design registration, a vent with a silicon seal, and a removable sticker with the Bodum logo on the side of the glass. By contrast, HAG’s glasses had an “M&W” trade mark imprinted on the bottom of each glass.

Packaging was also part of the evidence. The judgment refers to comparative packaging for the Bodum and HAG products and notes that HAG emphasised the differences in labelling and packaging between the parties. That matters because the legal question was whether the overall conduct, in context, conveyed a misleading message about origin, association or approval.

The court also considered four different forms of consumer experience: online, via catalogue, and in-store where the glasses were displayed with or without packaging. Importantly, the judgment notes that in some contexts consumers could not see the etching on the bottom of the glass or the packaging. That meant the court had to assess not just what the products looked like in ideal conditions, but how they were actually encountered in the market.

The application was dismissed. The formal orders were that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

The catchwords and summary conclusions are clear on the result. The court concluded that Bodum had not made out its claim under s 18 of the ACL for misleading or deceptive conduct arising from the similarities in shape between its Pavina and Canteen products and HAG’s competing Blend ranges. The court also concluded that Bodum had not made out its passing off claim.

The published judgment material states that Bodum did not establish a secondary reputation in the shape. It also states that, although HAG deliberately copied the shape and design features, the conduct was not misleading or deceptive and did not constitute passing off. The catchwords further note that HAG had placed an etching on the glass and had packaging with its own labelling, and that both parties had well-established reputations in the Australian market.

That combination is commercially important. The case was not decided on a broad statement that copying is always acceptable after design expiry. Nor was it decided on a broad statement that branding always cures similarity. Instead, the court’s stated conclusion was that, in the circumstances of this case, Bodum had not proved the necessary misleading conduct or passing off.

If you own a design-led brand, this case is a warning against assuming that a popular product shape will keep attracting legal protection after design registration expires. The judgment suggests that Bodum had a successful and recognisable product and a long market presence, but that was not enough to establish a secondary reputation in the shape itself. In practical terms, customers may know your brand very well while still not treating the shape alone as a badge of origin.

If you are building a product portfolio, this points to the value of layered protection. Registered designs can be powerful, but they are time-limited. Trade marks, consistent product branding, packaging strategy, retail display standards and evidence of how consumers identify your goods can become critical later. If shape is central to your product identity, you should think early about how to prove that consumers connect that shape with your business.

If you are launching a competing product after design rights have expired, this case should not be read as a free pass. HAG succeeded here, but only after detailed litigation about shape, branding, packaging, product markings and consumer context. The judgment shows that courts will examine online listings, catalogues, shelf presentation and whether consumers can actually see the distinguishing features before purchase. A business that copies too aggressively can still face expensive proceedings even if it ultimately wins.

The practical point about branding and packaging is especially strong. The judgment specifically notes HAG’s etching on the glass and packaging with its own labelling. That means businesses should not treat branding as an afterthought. If you are selling a product that resembles a competitor’s, clear and consistent branding across the product, packaging and retail environment may be central to reducing risk. Equally, if you are the original brand owner, weak or inconsistent use of branding may make it harder to argue that shape alone points to you.

The judgment was delivered by Raper J on 10 March 2026 in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing dates recorded in the judgment were 20 to 24 October 2025 and 17 February 2026. The hearing was split so that liability was dealt with at this stage.

The judgment material available here clearly records the orders and the court’s summary conclusions. Some of the reproduced reasons are cut off in the available text, so this page focuses on the parts of the decision that are clearly stated and should be read with that limitation in mind.