Did you? Funny that, in the first instance you said you didn't hear the call. yet you 'all had a good laugh' If your going to be a revisionist, you might try and study your own chronology Inky….. :laughing:
Ooooh hey I'm a 'legend' folks !! Ah and here we have the basis of Inky's problem, attention deficit. Must be deflating when you post 3,500 'opinions' in a calendar year and you're still not that noticeable or memorable. That's what irritates you isn't it old mate? I'm starting to love this, the squirming is illuminating. What's your on air persona Inky? You seem to be very shy on that score mate?
Schweppes v DL, such a 'well known recent case', but doesn't help your position, since you're clearly not familiar with the errors made by Heerey in relation to evidence and the resultant observations and directions of the Full Court. Nor would you be aware that the plaintiff was denied leave to appeal the HC. The matter rested ultimately on the opinion of Heerey and not the assembled marketing experts. In any case you're comparing a component of a major brand with a major brand per se and ignoring the fact that each case must be treated on it's merits. So don't try and pretend your familiar with the case, because you're not, beyond the 5 lines the Tele might have afforded it.
Play the man and not the ball mate, your speciality :smiley: I suppose I should be flattered by your campaign and you know I'm warming to it, so do your best