Federal Court of Australia
, '| FOR LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT SUITABLE FOR REPORTING J"'DGMENT No. RES
CATCHWORDS
DESIGN - alleged infringement of applicant's registered design - injunction restraining sale of article ~ application for discharge - effect of subsequent registration of design of article alleged to be substantially identical - factors
weighing on exercise of Court's discretion to discharge -
Ste aT NBL ewe fbb o* Bets bar S87
whether registration renders one design incapable of
infringing another registered design within s.30 Designs Act .
- whether a serious question to be tried remains.
ss 17, 30, 31 Designs Act 1906
TURBO TEK INC. and AUTOPACE PTY. LTD. v TARGET AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
VG 226 of 1987
Ryan J. 1 June 1988 , Melbourne .
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 226 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: TURBO TEK INC. and AUTOPACE PTY. LTD.
(Applicants)
AND; TARGET AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
(Respondent )
Coram: Ryan J.
Date: 1 June 1988
Place: Melbourne
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is the return of a motion on notice dated 27 May 1988 by which the respondent to these proceedings, Target Australia Pty. Ltd. ("Target") seeks, amongst other things, an order that an interlocutory injunction which I granted on 25 August 1987 at the instance of the applicants, Turbo Tek Inc. and Autopace Pty. Ltd. ("Turbo Tek" and "Autopace"), be discharged. By that injunction Target was restrained from:- "advertising, offering for sale, exposing for sale, displaying, selling or supplying any spray washer device the same as or substantially identical with the device depicted in Schedule 3
of the application herein, other than the spray washer device identified by the name Turbo-Wash."
PTC erm me een ete ne in tne +
* "Oe
acpi 220 8 4 BRD ~ eer
WR EARE Eee
ye
SON eer reer ten a tam An
Although Target did not consent to the grant of that injunction, it accepted that its issue would be inevitable if I adhered to the reasons for judgment published on 17 August 1987 when I granted another interlocutory injunction in proceedings VG 192 of 1987, also at the instance of Turbo Tek
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