{"id":8252,"date":"2026-01-06T11:30:43","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T22:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/?p=8252"},"modified":"2026-01-06T11:33:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T22:33:14","slug":"flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>In brief:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table Pty Ltd\u2019s (<strong>BBNT<\/strong>) appeal in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.austlii.edu.au\/cgi-bin\/viewdoc\/au\/cases\/cth\/HCA\/2025\/50.html\">Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd [2025] HCA 50 (10 December 2025)<\/a><\/em>, finding that Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd (<strong>GRBA<\/strong>) had contravened s 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (<strong>ACL<\/strong>) by, in trade or commerce, engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.<\/li>\n<li>The conduct in question was GRBA\u2019s use of the mark (the <strong>House B&amp;B mark<\/strong>) as the name of its soft homewares stores (<strong>House B&amp;B stores<\/strong>) that it launched in 2021, and including using the House B&amp;B mark on both internal and external store signate, the House website, receipts, social media, shopping centre directories and advertising and promotional materials, gift cards and employee name badges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-8248\" src=\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/house-bed-and-bath-logo-300x130.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"130\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/house-bed-and-bath-logo-300x130.png 300w, https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/house-bed-and-bath-logo.png 318w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The High Court held that the Full Court\u2019s had unduly focused on the issue of whether the trade marks were deceptively similar under s\u00a0120(1) of the <em>Trade Marks Act 1995<\/em> (Cth) (<strong>TMA<\/strong>) instead of considering the immediate and broader context of GRBA\u2019s conduct. As a result, the Full Court had conflated the separate inquiries under s\u00a0120(1) of the TMA and s\u00a018(1) of the ACL.<\/li>\n<li>Readers may recall that there was an earlier dispute in New Zealand between Brands Limited (trading as Bed Bath and Beyond) and BBNT. A refresher on the key issues in that case is set out below. The Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table cases on different sides of the Tasman are quite different in terms of both the respective market contexts and the applicable statutory lenses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Background<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since 1976, BBNT operated a network of soft homewares stores throughout Australia under registered trade marks including \u201cBED BATH \u2018N\u2019 TABLE\u201d (collectively, the <strong>BBNT mark<\/strong>). The soft homewares sold included bed linen, bathroom products and other goods, but not beds, baths or tables. BBNT was the dominant player in the speciality soft homewares sector in Australia.<\/p>\n<p>The BBNT mark is prominently used on stores and BBNT is a well-established brand with which many consumers are likely to be familiar.<\/p>\n<p>BBNT had been the only retailer in Australia that used the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d in its name over 40 years, until GRBA opened its first soft homewares store using the House B&amp;B mark.<\/p>\n<p>GRBA sold kitchenware and hard homewares under a trade mark incorporating the word \u201cHouse\u201d in stores which had a \u201cdiscount\u201d look. In 2021, GRBA opened its first soft homewares store under the House B&amp;B mark, followed by other House B&amp;B stores.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedural history<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>At first instance, Rofe J in the Federal Court found that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the House B&amp;B did<strong> not<\/strong> infringe the BBNT mark under section 120(1) of the TMA, because the House B&amp;B mark was not \u201csubstantially identical with, or deceptively similar to\u201d the BBNT mark; but<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0GRBA\u2019s conduct <strong>was<\/strong> misleading or deceptive in contravention of s 18(1) of the ACL.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Rofe J explained the different results as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the issue of trade mark\u00a0 infringement under s 120(1) turned on the ordinary consumer\u2019s impression or recollection (including imperfect recollection) of the marks, with the ordinary consumer not being \u201ccredited with any knowledge of the actual use of the registered trade mark, or any reputation associated with that mark\u201d; whereas<\/li>\n<li>the question of contravention of s 18(1) of the ACL required consideration of GRBA\u2019s conduct in its immediate and broader context, including BBNT\u2019s reputation in the BBNT mark considered from the perspective of the reasonable consumer of the goods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court allowed GRBA\u2019s appeal against Rofe J\u2019s orders. In the view of the Full Court, given Rofe J\u2019s \u201cclear finding\u201d that BBNT\u2019s reputation was in the BBNT mark as a whole and BBNT did not establish \u201cthat it has any independent reputation in \u2018BED BATH\u2019 or \u2018BED &amp; BATH\u2019 alone\u201d, her Honour had erred in \u201cnot giving effect to\u201d that finding in determining the alleged contravention under s 18(1) of the ACL.<\/p>\n<p>In the Full Court\u2019s view, neither Mr Lew\u2019s (GRBA\u2019s founder, director and chairman) nor Ms McGann\u2019s (GRBA\u2019s Head of Brand and Media) intentions provided any real assistance in determining whether GRBA engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The Full Court reasoned that Mr Lew\u2019s evidence, which the primary judge treated as establishing GRBA\u2019s \u201cwilful blindness to the risk of confusion\u201d, was incapable in the circumstances \u201cof proving any reliable evidence on the objective question\u201d of whether GRBA had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court found that the reasoning of the Full Court miscarried, and that Rofe J\u2019s reasons disclose no error of legal principle, fact-finding or reasonable process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Full Court had conflated two different enquires<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The High Court held that the Full Court\u2019s had unduly focused on the issue of whether the trade marks were deceptively similar under s\u00a0120(1) of the TMA instead of considering the immediate and broader context of GRBA\u2019s conduct. As a result, the Full Court had conflated the separate inquiries under s\u00a0120(1) of the TMA and s\u00a018(1) of the ACL.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court found that the Full Court\u2019s conclusion that Rofe\u00a0J did \u201cnot explain why BBNT\u201ds reputation in the BBNT mark led her Honour to find that GRBA\u2019s use of the House B&amp;B mark would be likely to mislead or deceive the ordinary and reasonable consumer, even though the marks were not deceptively similar\u201d exposes this error. In the High Court\u2019s view, Rofe J had explained the different outcomes by reference to BBNT\u2019s reputation in the BBNT mark.<\/p>\n<p>For the question of contravention of s\u00a018(1), the relevant circumstances included several additional factors, namely:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>BBNT\u2019s reputation in the BBNT mark and branding as distinctive of its soft homewares stores;<\/li>\n<li>GRBA\u2019s reputation in the House mark and branding for its House stores;<\/li>\n<li>Consumer\u2019s knowledge over 40 years of the distinctive appearance of BBNT stores and House stores;<\/li>\n<li>BBNT\u2019s use of the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d in that order, being unique to the exterior of BBNT stores for over 40 years and being not the natural order for reference to those words, so that they \u201crolled off the tongue\u201d and were undoubtedly part of the reason those words appealed to GRBA, which could leverage off that well-known pairing;<\/li>\n<li>GRBA\u2019s wilful blindness to the risk of confusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The High Court found that:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>That the marks were not deceptively similar under s 120(1) of the <\/em>Trade Marks Act<em> does not mean that GRBA\u2019s conduct in using the House B&amp;B mark as the name of and branding for GRBA\u2019s soft homewares stores, as appearing on the exterior of those stores and otherwise, was not likely to mislead and deceive consumers. The primary judge\u2019s answer to the trade mark infringement case did not provide an answer to the misleading and deceptive conduct case. The scope and function of the <\/em>Trade Marks Act<em> is different from the scope and function of the <\/em>Australian Consumer Law<em>, and the interests the former Act protects are different and have, in any event, changed over time.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The High Court considered that the Full Court\u2019s impermissible focus on the marks rather than the conduct in context was also exposed by the Full Court\u2019s reliance on the fact that Rofe\u00a0J found BBNT\u2019s reputation was in the BBNT mark as a whole and not the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d. The High Court considered that the Full Court had overlooked Rofe\u00a0J\u2019s findings that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>BBNT\u2019s longstanding reputation in its name included the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d (in that order);<\/li>\n<li>The words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d are not in their normal sequence but due to BBNT\u2019s long-standing use of the words, \u201cbed and bath\u201d rolled easily off the tongue;<\/li>\n<li>Consumers are familiar with seeing those words as category descriptors inside stores rather than on the exterior of stores other than BBNT stores;<\/li>\n<li>House stores had their own distinctive get-up different from the BBNT get up;<\/li>\n<li>The House B&amp;B stores get up used the same \u201cHamptons\u201d style as the BBNT stores.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In the High Court\u2019s view, the Full Court had conflated the concept of \u201cdistinctiveness\u201d in trade mark law, which involves the whole mark, with the broader concept of conduct in its immediate and broader context applicable to s\u00a018(1) of the ACL. In any event, the High Court noted that the relevant question was not whether it followed from BBNT\u2019s use of the BBNT mark for over 40 years that the use of \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d by GRBA would be likely to mislead or deceive, but rather whether the primary judge\u2019s conclusion involved material error.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Full Court had gone on to observe that it followed from Rofe\u00a0J\u2019s finding that BBNT\u2019s reputation was in the BBNT mark as a whole that \u201cit is the use of the composite phrase \u2018BED BATH \u2018N\u2019 TABLE\u2019 or \u2018BED BATH AND TABLE\u2019, not \u2018BED BATH\u2019 or \u2018BED &amp; BATH\u2019 that would indicate the existence of a commercial association between the business operating under that name and another business using a different name which also included the words \u2018BED &amp; BATH\u2019\u201d. In the High Court\u2019s view, the Full Court\u2019s reasoning was flawed because the positive proposition (the specific uses would indicate a commercial association) does not prove or support the negative proposition (GRBA\u2019s use of the House B&amp;B mark and branding in its immediate and broader context would not indicate a commercial association). The High Court considered that the fact that the Full Court considered it did prove or support the negative appeared to flow from the Full Court\u2019s focus on the marks, rather than the conduct in context.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court considered that this also explains why GRBA\u2019s reliance on the Full Court\u2019s characterisation of the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d as \u201clargely descriptive\u201d of the products is misplaced, because that characterisation \u201cmaterially downplays the significance of the primary judge\u2019s findings about the significance of those two words, in that order, on the exterior of BBNT\u2019s soft homewares stores, as part of the overall BBNT mark and branding\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the High Court rejected the Full Court\u2019s finding that Rofe J\u2019s reasoning gives BBNT a monopoly in the words \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d; the terms of Rofe J\u2019s declaration of the s\u00a018(1) contravention identify the conduct found to have engaged the statutory proscription. The High Court stated that:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>It remains the case that \u2018the possibility of blunders by members of the public will always be present when names consist of descriptive words\u2019 and that \u2018risk of confusion must be accepted\u2019, so that \u2018a name [which] is no more than merely descriptive of a particular type of business\u2019 can be used by another business without contravening the statutory proscription on misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, mere confusion being insufficient to amount to such conduct in any event. But, on the primary judge\u2019s findings, that is not the present case.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the High Court held that Rofe\u00a0J did not err \u201cwhen considering the [ACL] claim by not giving effect to her own finding that BBNT had no independent reputation in \u2018BED BATH\u2019 or \u2018BED &amp; BATH\u2019\u201d, nor was there any inconsistency between that finding and her Honours\u2019 conclusion that GRBA\u2019s conduct was likely to mislead or deceive consumers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Error in dealing with the state of mind evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The High Court considered that Rofe\u00a0J\u2019s characterisation of the state of mind as \u201cwilful blindness\u201d and rejection of Mr Lew being \u201ccommercially dishonest\u201d did not mean that her Honour had made a finding of honesty.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court noted that Rofe J had found Mr Lew and Ms McGann\u2019s evidence to be, among other things, \u201ccontrived\u201d, \u201creverse engineered\u201d and \u201cuntenable\u201d, leading to an \u201castonishing level of wilful blindness\u201d on the part of Mr Lew, attributable to Mr Lew. The High Court found that nothing was to be gained by GRBA emphasising the lack of a finding of dishonesty against it.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court found that, contrary to GRBA\u2019s submission, it is not the case that the evidentiary proportions in <em>Australian Woollen Mills<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>are confined to cases of a trader\u2019s use of a competitors\u2019 trade mark or get-up wit dishonest intend to mislead consumers. In that case, Dixon and McTiernan JJ stated as a \u201c<em>rule that if a mark or get-up for goods is adopted for the purpose of appropriating part of the trade or reputation of a rival, it should be presumed to be fitted for the purpose and therefore likely\u00a0 to deceive or confuse<\/em>\u201d, and that <em>\u201c[i]n a question how possible or prospective buyers will be impressed by a given picture, word or appearance, the instinct and judgment of traders is not to be lightly rejected, and when a dishonest trader fashions an implement or weapon for the purpose of misleading potential customers he at least provides a reliable and expert opinion on the question whether what he has done is in fact likely to deceive<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>While Dixon and McTiernan JJ had referred to a \u201cdishonest trader\u201d achieving the end or object of misleading or deceiving consumers, neither in logic nor legal principle can the method of reasoning be so limited. In the case of misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s\u00a018(1) of the ACL, a person\u2019s dishonest intention is not an element of the statutory proscription. A person\u2019s state of mind, directly or by analogy, may engage the approach to evidence explained in <em>Australian Woollen Mills<\/em>. The infinite spectrum of a person\u2019s state of mind from dishonest to scrupulous honesty are all within the scope of that reasoning.<\/p>\n<p>In the High Court\u2019s view, the observation on which the Full Court relied, that \u201cproof of a subjective intention to mislead\u2026may be some evidence that in a border line case the respondents\u2019 conduct is likely to mislead or deceive\u201d is too narrow in multiple respects. The approach to such evidence in <em>Australian Woollen Mills<\/em> is not confined to cases of a subjective intention to mislead, nor are they engaged only in a \u201cborder line case\u201d, and nor is such resulting evidence to be classified as \u201csome evidence\u201d only, if by that emphasis the Full Court meant that evidence resulting from the operation of the evidentiary approach is to be given less weight on an a priori basis derived from its character.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, Rofe\u00a0J\u2019s inferences about the states of mind of Mr Lew and Ms McGann and properly attributable to GRBA, could and did provide cogent evidence relevant to the objective question of contravention of s\u00a018(1) of the ACL. Rofe J\u2019s findings, including about those states of mind, were sufficient to establish that GRBA had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s\u00a018(1).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Contrast with New Zealand: Brands Ltd v Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>BBNT had previously been involved in trade mark litigation in New Zealand against Brands Ltd, trading as Bed Bath &amp; Beyond (<strong>BBB<\/strong>).<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The market context in NZ was quite different, with BBB and BBNT having co-existed in NZ for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Since 1994, BBB had a NZ registered trade mark (the <strong>1994 BBB mark<\/strong>) for \u201cBED BATH &amp; BEYOND\u201d with a disclaimer to the effect that there was no exclusive right to \u201cbed\u201d and \u201cbath\u201d. BBB had another identical registered trade mark with a deemed registration date of 9 June 2014.<\/p>\n<p>BBNT had a registered trade mark for \u201cBED BATH \u2018N\u2019 TABLE\u201d, which was registered in NZ on 4 June 2014 via the Madrid Protocol.<\/p>\n<p>BBB sought invalidation of BBNT\u2019s 2014 registration on four grounds: ss17(1)(a) and (b) and ss 25(1)(b) and (c). If successful, BBB also sought a finding that, from the outset, BBNT\u2019s use of its mark infringed BBB\u2019s registered trade mark. BBB also argued that BBNT\u2019s use of its trade mark amounted to passing off and breaches of the NZ Fair Trading Act (<strong>NZ FTA<\/strong>).<\/p>\n<p>As well as refuting those claims and relying on a number of positive defences, BBNT counterclaimed that if the marks were confusingly similar, the BBB registered trade marks were invalid.<\/p>\n<p>The NZ High Court found that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>BBNT\u2019s 2014 mark had priority over BBB\u2019s 2014 mark.<\/li>\n<li>On the question of invalidity under s\u00a025(1)(b) of the <em>Trade Marks Act 2002<\/em> (<strong>NZ TMA<\/strong>), the marks were similar and related to similar goods\/services but the ground was not made out. In relation to the disclaimer, \u201cBed\u201d and \u201cBath\u201d were highly descriptive of the character of the services provided and the product sold. The very fact of the descriptiveness mitigated the relevant confusion that might be expected to arise from the fair and notional use of the same words. Notwithstanding the higher likelihood of similarity with other marks, the use of descriptive\/non-distinctive words in a trade mark reduced the risk of vitiating or fatal confusion because:\n<ul>\n<li>Some confusion was to be tolerated as the price for using descriptive words;<\/li>\n<li>The use of descriptive words reduced the capacity of the relevant marks to signify the origin of the goods or services;<\/li>\n<li>Reasonable consumers seeing such marks would recognise the descriptive allusions for what they were; and<\/li>\n<li>Small differences, e.g. the \u201c&amp;\u201d and the \u201cN\u201d or \u201cBeyond\u201d and \u201cTable\u201d may well suffice to distinguish the marks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>On the question of invalidity under s\u00a025(1)(b), notional fair use was likely to result and probably had resulted in some confusion about the origin of the services and goods but the considerable similarity between the marks was largely a function of their incorporation of non-distinctive or descriptive words. Accordingly, some of the confusion occurred as the price to be paid for BBB\u2019s choice of the words. Most reasonable consumers wouldn\u2019t see the similarities as denoting a connection between the respective proprietors and would pay attention to the small differences between the marks. Hence, this ground was not made out.<\/li>\n<li>Section 25(1)(c) was not made out because this was neither a case where a well-known trade mark was unregistered but the brand was very well known nor where the goods and services offered by one party were dissimilar to those offered by the trade mark owner.<\/li>\n<li>BBNT had established honest concurrent use of its own trade mark as at 2014 and would have been able to successfully defend its application for registration.<\/li>\n<li>On the question of invalidity under s\u00a017(1)(a), the BBB mark had more than sufficient reputation as at the relevant date, but BBNT also had an established reputation in this market. BBB\u2019s use of descriptive terms in its trade mark necessarily diminished the reputation it could otherwise claim in those words. The assessment of likely deception or confusion must take into account BBNT\u2019s existing reputation in the same market. BBNT\u2019s existing use was not causing deception or confusion, or at least not to a level that was of any apparent concern to BBB. Taking into account BBB\u2019s undoubted reputation in the existing market in 2014, the court was unable to conclude that normal and fair use of BBNT\u2019s trade mark after that date was likely to lead to substantial confusion confusion, so the claim based on s 17(1)(a) failed.<\/li>\n<li>The s\u00a017(1)(b) ground added little to BBB\u2019s claims, especially in light of the court\u2019s finding later in the judgment that there had been neither passing off nor breach of the NZ FTA.<\/li>\n<li>The claim for trade mark infringement under s 89(1)(c) of the NZ TMA failed because although the BBNT mark was similar to the BBB mark, and BBNT was using its mark in relation to goods and services which were similar to the services specified in the BBB 1994 mark, BBNT\u2019s use was not likely to deceive or cause confusion to the requisite level or among the requisite number of people.<\/li>\n<li>The court\u2019s earlier finding that BBNT\u2019s 2014 trade mark was not invalid meant that s 93 precluded an infringement action under s\u00a089(1)(c).<\/li>\n<li>On the own name defence in s\u00a095, the wording of the section meant that companies were excluded from the defence. If that was wrong, the defence would have been established as BBNT\u2019s use of its name was in accordance with honest practice.<\/li>\n<li>In relation to the passing off claim and breaches of the NZ FTA, it was unclear whether BBB was seeking to establish goodwill prior to 2014. There was no difficulty in establishing that BBB could establish good will at that date. The court did not understand BBB to be claiming that the descriptive words used in its name had acquired a secondary meaning. The respective logos were not particularly similar and, if anything, detracted from any suggestion of a relationship between the two businesses. There was no misrepresentation. BBNT had done no more than represent hat its own mark and get-up were associated with its own business. In obiter, the court commented that because BBNT was honestly using its own mark to do no more than signify a connection with its own business, the court would have found that it had made out the defence of honest concurrent use in respect of passing off. Although that is not a defence to breach of the NZ FTA, this finding militate against any grant of relief under the NZ FTA.<\/li>\n<li>As there was no misrepresentation, there was no damage to BBB\u2019s goodwill.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As can be seen, The Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table cases on different sides of the Tasman are quite different in terms of both the respective market context and the applicable statutory lenses.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> <em>Australian Woollen Mills v F S Walton &amp; Co Ltd<\/em> [1937] HCA 51; (1937) 58 CLR 641.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> <em>Brands Ltd v Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table Pty Ltd<\/em> [2023] NZHC 1766.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In brief: The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table Pty Ltd\u2019s (BBNT) appeal in Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd [2025] HCA 50 (10 December 2025), finding that Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd (GRBA) had contravened s 18(1) of the Australian Consumer&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":8244,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[250,252,259],"class_list":["post-8252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-litigation-au","category-news-au","category-trade-marks-au","insight-resource-articles-au","insight-resource-case-studies-au"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table&#039;s appeal.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table&#039;s appeal.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"James &amp; Wells\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"896\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jennifer Mertens\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jennifer Mertens\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jennifer Mertens\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636\"},\"headline\":\"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\"},\"wordCount\":3659,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Litigation\",\"News\",\"Trade marks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\",\"name\":\"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636\"},\"description\":\"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table's appeal.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg\",\"width\":1600,\"height\":896},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/\",\"name\":\"James &amp; Wells\",\"description\":\"Excellence in IP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636\",\"name\":\"Jennifer Mertens\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells","description":"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table's appeal.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells","og_description":"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table's appeal.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/","og_site_name":"James &amp; Wells","article_published_time":"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1600,"height":896,"url":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jennifer Mertens","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jennifer Mertens","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/"},"author":{"name":"Jennifer Mertens","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636"},"headline":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal","datePublished":"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/"},"wordCount":3659,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg","articleSection":["Litigation","News","Trade marks"],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/","name":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal - James &amp; Wells","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg","datePublished":"2026-01-05T22:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-05T22:33:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636"},"description":"The High Court of Australia has unanimously allowed Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table's appeal.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/folded-towels-in-bathroom.jpg","width":1600,"height":896},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/flipping-the-tables-high-court-allows-bed-bath-n-tables-appeal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Flipping the Tables: High Court allows Bed Bath \u2018N\u2019 Table\u2019s Appeal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/","name":"James &amp; Wells","description":"Excellence in IP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/nz\/#\/schema\/person\/64e4a40a49fe981aaa979bfd660eb636","name":"Jennifer Mertens"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8252"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8254,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252\/revisions\/8254"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jamesandwells.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}