Federal Court of Australia
"No. G.125 of 1981.
CATCHWORDS
Appeal - trade practices - deceptive conduct - interlocutory
injunction - attitude of appellate court.
Registered design - infringement - whether associated matter.
Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s.32
SUPERSTAR AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED v. COONAN & DENLAY PTY. LIMITED and ANTHONY EUNAN HENSON
CORAM: Franki, Davies and Morling Jo. 4 December 1981
SYDNEY.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
eee ews
NO. G125 of 1981
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF
THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SUPERSTAR AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
AND:
Appellant (Respondent)
COONAN & DENLAY PTY. LIMITED and ANTHONY EUNAN HENSON
Respondents (Applicants)
ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Franki, Davies and Morling JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 4 December 1981 WHERE MADE: Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY NO. G125 of 1981
GENERAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SUPERSTAR AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
Appellant (Respondent) AND:
COONAN & DENLAY PTY. LIMITED and ANTHONY EUNAN HENSON
Respondents (Applicants)
Coram: Franki, Davies and Morling JJ. 4 December 1981 ao : : Sydney.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an appeal from a decision of Bowen C.J. given in proceedings brought by the applicants (who are the respondents to this appeal) against Superstar Australia Pty. Limited ("Superstar") seeking injunctions against Superstar in relation to the sale of cricket helmets. The matter came before the Chief Judge on 1 September 1981 for directions and for interlocutory xelief. The interlocutory relief sought was as follows: first,
2.
interlocutory orders restraining Superstar from selling any cricket helmet in packaging which it was claimed was misleading to the public, secondly, interlocutory orders restraining Superstar from selling any cricket helmet in the form presently sold by it which it was claimed infringed a registered design of which the first applicant was the exclusive licensee and the second applicant the registered proprietor, and thirdly, interlocutory orders restraining Superstar from selling any cricket helmet to which had been applied the design disclosed in the registered design.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate