Bondpark Pty Ltd v Genex Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 704

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

JUDGMENT No. 7044, Sh

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) V. No. G 413 of 1987 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : BONDPARK PTY. LTD. Applicant and GENEX CORPORATION PTY. LTD. and OTHERS Respondents

QURT: NORTHROP J.

Ci

-7ercies7 =: FEDERA!. GUUST OF |

ATE : 2 NOVEMBER 15387

ID

PLACE: MELBOURNE

AUS™RALIA FRINC PAR ¢ REGIA AY Air

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT \.' <r

In this matter the applicant 1s moving the Court for interlocutory orders similar to those granted in Aspar Autobarn Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Dovala Pty. Ltd. (1386) 8 A.T.P.R. 40,727. In substance, the applicant 15 seeking an injunction restraining the respondent, and when I use the word "respondent" I refer to the respondent Genex Corporation Pty. Led., from carrying on any trade or business in the

photographic film processing industry by reference to any name, or trade name, mark or business name which includes the words "cut price photo" or the words "cut price photos" or any words which include the words "cut price" or any word or

words substantially identical or deceptively or confusingly

similar thereto. The applicant 15 also seeking ancillary orders, in substance, requiring the respondent to lodge with the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs an application to discontinue its registration of the business name "Cut Price

Photos" which it presently has under the Business Names Act

1962 (Vic), and also orders having the effect of enabling the applicant to proceed with its registration of the business name "Cut Price Photos" to be registered under the provisions of the Business Names Act. The reasons for these orders will

become apparent later in these reasons.

The matters presently before the Court are interlocutory and in addition to constraints of time it must be remembered that the Court has not yet looked fully into all the facts affecting the issues between the parties nor has 1t conducted a full examination of all the law relevant to be applied to those facts. As in unterlocutory proceedings, tentative views have been formed of the facts and I am not involved in any way in determining the credibility of witnesses. Any attempt to do so, in reality, makes interlocutory procedures more like a final hearing and such a course should not be adopted except in very exceptional circumstances, and this is not one of those cases. As a result I should say that I have formed no final opinion on the facts or the law in this matter but proceed in the normal way as on an interlocutory application for orders,