ss. 52, 53(c). False and misleading representations
12 August 2004: The ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court, Adelaide, against Set Sale Realty Pty Ltd and its director Mr David Pilling for alleged false and misleading representations made about the Pilling System, a real estate property selling system.
Set Sale Realty claims to own the trademarks 'Set Sale', 'Buyer Enquiry Range' and 'Buyer Ranged' and trades under the name Pilling Systems. Set Sale Realty promotes a real estate property selling system which uses these trademarked terms and has licensing agreements with real estate agents in several states and the ACT to use the system.
The ACCC alleged that in January 2004 Set Sale Realty sent an email to its licensee real estate agents with an attached notice claiming the ACCC had approved the Pilling System. The notice was designed to be used in information kits provided by agents to prospective vendors.
The ACCC alleged that the representations were false and misleading in breach of ss. 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act because the Pilling System does not have ACCC approval as claimed.
The matter has been listed for a directions hearing on 15 September 2004.
15 September 2004: The matter has been listed for a one day trial in the Federal Court, Adelaide, on 16 December 2004.
1 November 2004: The court found that Set Sale Realty and Mr Pilling had made false and misleading representation about having ACCC approval for its real estate property selling system. The court declared that Set Sale Realty had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct or conduct that was likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s. 52 of the Act and had represented that the system had approval that it did not have in contravention of s. 52(c) of the Act. The court granted a three-year injunction restraining Set Sale Realty and Mr Pilling from representing that the system has ACCC approval or any similar representation. It also made orders including that Set Sale Realty write to each of its real estate agents to inform them of the decision and pay the ACCC's costs of $6000.
The court also found that Mr Pilling aided and abetted and was knowingly concerned in the conduct and ordered him to attend a trade practices compliance seminar.
