The High Court of Australia’s decision in Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66 remains a landmark judgment in the domain of trade mark law. It covers the difficult question of how static trade marks translate to the fluid, fast-moving era of television and film. While the case is decades old, its principles regarding “use as a trade mark” and the distinction between “substantial identity” and “deceptive similarity” continue to anchor Australian intellectual property law.
The dispute was about a caricature of a man, i.e. described during the proceedings as a “humanized oil-drop”. Both Shell and Esso were (and are) major players in the petroleum industry. In a period where service stations were becoming the primary face of oil companies, branding was everything. Trade marks weren’t just labels on a bottle, i.e. they were the signs that told a driver which brand of petrol they were about to pump. When Shell began using an animated oil-drop character in television advertisements, Esso saw a direct threat to its own registered “oil-drop man”. The resulting legal dispute forced the courts to decide if a series of fleeting, moving images could truly infringe upon a stationary mark registered on paper.
Background of the Case
Esso was the registered proprietor of two trade marks featuring a “humanized oil-drop”. These marks depicted a character with a large, drop-shaped head, a small body, and a cheerful expression. One version included the word “Esso” on the character’s chest, while the other was a plain outline. These marks were registered, covering products like lubricating oils and fuels. Esso had spent significant resources associating this character with its brand, often using the slogan “Happy Motoring” alongside the smiling drop.
Shell, seeking to promote its own petrol and a new additive called I.C.A., produced two one-minute television advertisements. These films featured an animated oil-drop character who engaged in various antics. In the first film, the character visits a patent office, transforms into a woman wearing a hat, and eventually points to a Shell badge. In the second, the drop acquires the body of a kangaroo and hops onto a microscope.
The conflict arose because, during these rapid-fire animations, the Shell character would occasionally settle into a pose or a shape that looked remarkably like Esso’s registered marks. Esso sued for infringement, claiming that Shell was using its protected identity to sell rival petrol. The case initially went before Justice Windeyer, whose findings set the stage for a landmark appeal to the full bench of the High Court.
The Initial Finding and the Problem of Motion
When the case was first heard, the court had to grapple with a novel issue, i.e. can a moving picture infringe a static trade mark? Shell argued that a trade mark is a static, fixed thing. They contended that if you make that thing move, the impression it leaves is so different that it cannot be an infringement. Justice Windeyer disagreed. He reasoned that if a trade mark depicts a man running, then showing a film of that man running could certainly be an infringement. He famously noted that if a figure recognizable as the “oil-drop man” appears on screen, it does not matter that he is engaging in “antics” while praising a competitor’s goods.
Justice Windeyer broke the analysis into two distinct tests, i.e. “substantial identity” and “deceptive similarity”. For “substantial identity”, he suggested a “side-by-side comparison”. He admitted that if you paused the film at certain moments, the image on the screen was substantially identical to Esso’s mark. However, because the character moved so quickly, he felt this wasn’t enough to prove infringement on its own.
So instead, he focused on “deceptive similarity”. This test isn’t about looking at two things side-by-side; it’s about the “imperfect recollection” of a consumer. He believed that a motorist watching television would retain a general impression of the Esso man and, upon seeing Shell’s animation, would be confused. He concluded that Shell was using the oil-drop man to suggest an association between the two companies, leading to a finding of infringement. Shell, unhappy with this result, appealed to the Full Court of the High Court.
The High Court’s Perspective on “Use as a Trade Mark”
The High Court took a different path, and its reasoning is why this case is still cited today. The central question for the High Court wasn’t just whether the characters looked alike, but whether Shell was using the character “as a trade mark”.
Justice Kitto, who wrote the primary judgment, explained that not every use of a similar mark is an infringement. To infringe, the person must use the mark as a “sign” to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the person using the mark. In other words, was Shell using the oil-drop to tell the viewer, “This character is the brand of our petrol.”?
The Court watched the films themselves and observed that the character was constantly changing. It was a “Protean creature”, as they claimed, shifting from a man to a woman to a kangaroo in a matter of seconds. The High Court found that the purpose of the oil-drop in the films was not to act as a brand or a “cynosure” as they stated (a center of attention), for the product’s identity. Instead, it was a character in a disjointed tale. The oil-drop was a vehicle for a message about the qualities of Shell petrol and the I.C.A. additive, not a badge of origin.
Context and Purpose of mark
The High Court emphasized that context is everything. Even if a single frame of the film looked exactly like Esso’s mark, that frame didn’t exist in isolation. A television viewer doesn’t watch a film frame-by-frame; they watch it as a continuous sequence.
Justice Kitto argued that no viewer would look at a fleeting scene in a sixty-second commercial and say to themselves, “There I see a mark by which I may know that this petrol is Shell’s.” The viewer would understand the character as a symbol for petrol in a general sense, or as a character in an advertisement, but they wouldn’t see it as the “brand” of the petrol.
The Court also looked at the “usages of the trade.” Evidence showed that many oil companies had used personified oil drops in their advertising over the years. This meant that Esso didn’t have a monopoly on the general idea of a “humanized oil drop.” While Esso owned its specific drawing, it couldn’t stop others from using the concept of an oil drop with a face, provided they weren’t using it as a trade mark in a way that caused confusion about the source of the goods.
The Decision
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction against Shell. The judges agreed that while there were moments of fleeting resemblance, the “purpose and nature” of the use were decorative and illustrative rather than being a trade mark use.
Justice Taylor and Justice Owen even went a step further, expressing doubt that the moving figure could even be called “deceptively similar”. As the figure was in constant motion and frequently changed its expression and attitude, the total impression it created was entirely different from Esso’s static mark. They found it difficult to see a resemblance when the similarities only lasted for a few moments out of a whole minute of animation.
Key Takeaways for Intellectual Property Strategy
This decision provides several enduring lessons for businesses and legal practitioners regarding the protection and use of brand assets.
Firstly, it establishes that “use as a trade mark” is a high bar. Simply featuring a competitor’s mark, or something similar to it, in an advertisement might be disparaging or confusing, but it isn’t necessarily trade mark infringement unless that mark is being used to identify the source of the goods or services. This distinction is vital for comparative advertising and creative marketing.
Secondly, the case highlights the difficulty of protecting “concepts”. Esso owned a specific character, but they did not own the concept of an oil drop with arms and legs. In intellectual property, the line between an original expression and a general idea is often thin. Businesses must ensure that their marks have enough “individuality” to be distinguishable even within a crowded field of similar industry tropes.
Thirdly, it reminds us that the medium affects the message. The High Court’s refusal to pause the film to find infringement shows a pragmatic approach to how consumers actually experience branding. In the modern age of digital media, GIFs, and short-form video content, this principle is more relevant than ever. Courts will look at the total impression of a digital experience rather than picking apart isolated elements.
That said, finally, the case shows the importance of distinctive branding. As “humanized oil drops” were somewhat common in the trade, Esso’s mark was viewed more narrowly. The more unique and original a mark is, the wider the “fence” a court is likely to build around it.
Conclusion
Thus, this decision is very important to understand the nuances of trade mark law. It balances the rights of property owners with the needs of a competitive and creative marketplace. It tells us that motion changes the nature of a mark and that the intention behind a visual representation is just as important as the visual itself.
For brand owners, the lesson is clear, i.e. protect your marks vigorously, but recognize that your monopoly is limited to the use of that mark as a brand identifier. For advertisers, the case offers a degree of freedom to be creative, provided that the use of a character or symbol doesn’t cross the line into becoming a rival “badge of origin”. In a world that has moved from television screens to smartphones, the “humanized oil drop” remains a symbol of the enduring need for clarity, context, and common sense in the law of brands.
Contact us to learn more about how LexGeneris can assist you with all your intellectual property needs. You can also schedule a no-cost consultation with our team of expert IP Attorneys Australia, IP Attorneys India, and IP Attorneys New Zealand
