Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
Trade Practices - misleading or deceptive conduct - associated
claim for passing off - rival manufacturers of absorbent incontinence blankets - whether use of same colour and quilting pattern constitutes similar "get up" - use of distinctive labels ~
purchasers unlikely to be misled or deceived.
Patents - claim alleging infringement of patent - whether respondent's blanket took the integers of the patented invention ~ cross-claim for revocation of patent on grounds that patent too
wide and invention not useful.
Patents Act 1953 ss.40 and 100
Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52
NICHOLAS KIWI (PACIFIC) PTY LTD v HOSPEX (AUST.) PTY LTD
No. VG 40 of 1985
Woodward J. Melbourne 9 October 1985
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 40 of 1985
weve eu
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN :
NICHOLAS KIWI (PACIFIC) PTY LTD Applicant and HOSPEX (AUST.) PTY LTD Respondent
MINUTES OF QRDER
COURT: Woodward J.
DATE: 9 October 1985
PLACE: Melbourne
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. That the application and the cross-claim be dismissed.
2. That the applicant pay three-quarters of the
respondent's total costs of the application and
cross-claim.
(NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in 0.36 of
the Federal Court Rules.)
te.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 40 of 1985
GENERAL DIVISTON
BETWEEN :
NICHOLAS KIWI (PACIFIC) PITY LTD Applicant and HOSPEX (AUST. ) PTY LTD Respondent
COURT: Woodward J.
DATE: 9 October 1985
PLACE: Melbourne
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This case concerns the production of incontinence
blankets - sometimes called incontinence pads, bed protectors or absorbent bed-sheets - by two rival manufacturers. The blankets, which clearly offer great advantages to the estimated 40,000 patients in Australia who are unable to control their passing of urine, and to those who have to care for such patients, have only been developed in recent years. The applicant company, through a related predecessor company, was the first in the field, and it brings this action against the respondent company, claiming infringement of its patent rights, and misleading or deceptive
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