Australia’s “largest polluting climate” takes Greenpeace to court Climate Change News

Canberra, Australia – Greenpeace Australia Pacific will sue Australia’s largest electricity generator AGL Energy Ltd in court on Wednesday after the AGL accused the environmental organization of abusing copyright and trademark laws.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific used AGL logos in its satirical advertising campaign launched in early May 2021. The campaign was developed to promote a new report by Greenpeace Australia Pacific to raise public awareness that the AGL is Australia’s “largest climate polluter”.

The campaign features the AGL logo along with Greenpeace. The AGL’s legal team will argue in court that this violates Australian trademark and copyright laws.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific says the ads are satirical in nature and no one can confuse them into thinking the materials are official AGL promotional material.

“By parodying the AGL brand in our advertising campaign, we want to attract people’s attention, while the AGL presents a forward-looking and renewable vision to the public, responsible for more climate pollution than any other company. The country,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Senior Campaigner Glenn Walker Al As he told Jazeera.

“Despite being Australia’s largest operator of coal-fired power plants, AGL has an undeserved reputation as a leading renewable energy organization.

“The AGL brand is a fake face, and it’s a mature target for satire.”

Australia’s “dirtiest pollutant”

The AGL generates and supplies electricity in several Australian states.

It supplies energy to almost a third of Australia’s homes and has a generation capacity of more than 11,000 megawatts, about 20% of the Australian National Energy Market.

But it relies on coal-fired power plants to generate that strength.

85% of the company’s power comes from coal, according to its data. It was only 10 percent of renewable energy by 2020.

However, the AGL listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) is increasingly promoting itself as an environmentally responsible company. His advertising materials say he is “behind renewables” and “the largest investor in ASX-listed renewable energy”.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s campaign is specifically targeted at these claims. The group believes the AGL is “Australia’s largest domestic contributor to climate change” and is responsible for more than 42 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2019-2020.

The claims are backed by data from the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Regulator[1]. Statistics from the Agency’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reports show that AGL emissions account for more than 8% of all Australian emissions, which is more than double that of Australia’s next largest emitter.

Katrina Bullock, Greenpeace Australia’s chief executive officer, says it is noteworthy that the AGL does not deny these allegations.

“The AGL does not deny the headline that claims to be Australia’s dirtiest polluter,” Bullock told Al Jazeera.

“AGL claims to use its logo [Greenpeace Australia Pacific] the campaign was a trademark abuse, ”he said.

“But in Australia, trademark law is violated if you use that particular brand during trade. This is an environmental campaign that does not sell products or services.”

In addition, lawyers have stated that there is a “direct copyright exemption” in Australia to allow for satire and criticism. This means that copyrighted trademark elements, such as logos, can be used in public comment.

Bullock described the case as “a silent tactic used to silence criticism and remove it.”

‘SLAPP suits’

“This is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP),” said Rebecca Gilsenan, chief lawyer for Maurice Blackburn, the company that provides legal aid to Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“From a legal point of view, you have to ask yourself: is the AGL really concerned with the use of its logo?” Gilsenan asked.

“Or is it because Greenpeace is calling them to do green cleaning?”

Staff at AGL’s Liddell Power Station in Muswellbrook, New South Wales, Australia. The company planned to close the plant by 2022, but has extended its life until April 2023, according to its website [File: Dan Himbrechts/EPA]

The SLAPP lawsuit is a lawsuit that aims to intimidate critics into censoring themselves because of the heavy financial burden of assembling legal defense. The main goal is to stop attacks by critical individuals or organizations.

“SLAPP litigation is well known in other countries, but is not uncommon in Australia,” Gilsenan explained. “These SLAPP outfits have a huge effect on the campaign and on anyone else who wants to criticize them. [AGL’s] activities “.

The AGL denies the claims, arguing that the case is merely to prevent “illegal use of the AGL brand.”

“The AGL has no intention of stifling public debate,” an AGL spokesman said in a comment to Al Jazeera. “However, we reserve the right to defend our brand under Australian law.”

The AGL initially contacted Greenpeace Australia Pacific to launch the campaign and one day send a cancellation letter. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the AGL sought an urgent order to stop Greenpeace Australia Pacific from using the AGL mark.

The matter was heard a few days later, but the court rejected the request and did not order the removal of the material.

What happens next depends on the outcome of the June 2 hearing.

SLAPP outfits are rare in Australia

Australia’s last significant SLAPP lawsuit was in 2005. The forestry company Gunns took 20 people and organizations to court for breaking its business as a result of vandalism and attacks by workers.

Guns complained that the defendants caused the company to lose jobs and profits. Defendants, Brown, then head of the Australian Green Party, argued that they cared for the environment.

Gunns eventually dropped claims against some critics five years later and the Victorian Supreme Court ordered him to pay the defendants’ costs. All other claims were resolved.

“Freedom of speech, as well as forest welfare, is at stake with this action,” Brown said in 2007. “Instead of suing the timber industry [for breaching environmental law], those who want to defend our national environmental legislation are in court. “

Former Green Chief Bob Brown (left), a veteran conservationist, was the target of a SLAPP lawsuit brought in 2005 by the Gunns forestry company. He resigned five years later. [File: Erik Anderson/EPA]

Only the Australian Capital Territory has legislation to prevent SLAPP clothing.

Potential background

The outcome of the AGL vs Greenpeace Australia Pacific trial could have a significant impact on Australian public criticism.

“Winning this lawsuit would set a strong precedent for the courts to find out how the fair use is used,” Greenpeace Australia Bullock of the Pacific said.

“This case could establish what would be considered fair use,” he explained. “This would allow people to satirize and parody without fear of litigation.”

Other environmental and climate organizations are looking closely. Thirteen groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth Australia, signed a letter to the AGL in late May asking the company to take legal action.

“We believe that freedom to express this and the right that our organizations demand of corporations in response to urgent climate action is a direct evil,” he says in the letter.

“We firmly believe that the right of charities, nonprofits, comedians and community members to criticize, parody and satirize corporations using their logo is a fundamental threat to litigation.”