Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 584
COPYRIGHT – infringement – copyright in floor plans for project homes – whether copying of a substantial part – whether houses built in accordance with floor plans which infringed applicant's copyright also infringed that copyright – no evidence that houses built exactly in accordance with infringing floor plans or other evidence of appearance of houses – quantum of profits where houses built in accordance with infringing floor plans – whether part of building profit included – quantum of damages where no houses built in accordance with infringing floor plans –whether applicant entitled to additional damages. ACCOUNT OF PROFITS – infringement of copyright in floor plans for project homes – construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans – proper measure of account of profits – whether respondent must account for all profits made from construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans – whether respondent must account only for saving made through use of infringing floor plans – whether profits should be apportioned – proper basis for apportionment – whether allowance should be made for overheads – whether construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans involved opportunity cost – whether overheads should be allowed on an incremental or absorption basis – whether overheads should be allocated on basis of revenue or average cost – whether applicant can be awarded additional damages where it elects for an account of profits in respect of an infringement. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 21 (3), 115 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 51A
Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 138, applied Bradbury, Agnew & Co v Day (1916) 32 TLR 349, considered Chabot v Davies [1936] 3 All ER 221, considered LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551, referred to Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Kis (Australia) Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 283, referred to S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466, considered Dyason v Autodesk Inc (1990) 24 FCR 147, considered Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigal Homes Pty Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 265, applied Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 2 NSWLR 278, considered Robert J Zupanovich Pty Ltd v B & N Beale Nominees Pty Ltd (1995) 59 FCR 49, considered Burke and Margot Burke Ltd v Spicers Dress Designs [1936] Ch 400, considered Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25, applied Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp 309 US 390 (1940), applied My Kinda Town v Soll [1982] FSR 147, considered Potton Ltd v Yorkclose Ltd [1990] FSR 11, distinguished Peter Pan Manufacturing Corp v Corsets Silhouette Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 96, distinguished Siddell v Vickers (1892) 9 RPC 152, distinguished Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101, applied Leplastrier & Co Ltd v Armstrong-Holland Ltd (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 585, referred to Levin Bros v Davis Manufacturing Co 72 F (2d) 163 (8th Cir, 1934), referred to Tremaine v Hitchcock & Co ("The Tremolo Patent") 90 US 518 (1874), referred to Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp 106 F 2d 45 (2nd Cir, 1939), applied Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, referred to Wilkie v Santly Bros Inc 139 F 2d 264 (1943), considered Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd v Apand Pty Ltd (No 2) (1998) 83 FCR 466, applied Manfal Pty Ltd v Longuet (1986) 8 IPR 410, referred to New England Country Homes Pty Ltd v Moore (1998) AIPC ¶91-410, referred to Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung (1990) 94 ALR 472, considered Amalgamated Mining Services Pty Ltd v Warman International Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 269, considered Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Luckins (1996) 34 IPR 504, considered Bailey v Namol Pty Ltd (1994) 53 FCR 102, considered Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197, applied Concrete Systems Pty Ltd v Devon Symonds Holdings Ltd (1978) 20 SASR 79, considered International Credit Control Ltd v Axelsen [1974] 1 NZLR 695, not followed Wellington Newspapers Ltd v Dealers Guide Ltd [1984] 2 NZLR 66, not followed Raben Footwear Pty Ltd v Polygram Records Inc (1997) 145 ALR 1, referred to Autodesk Inc v Yee (1996) 139 ALR 735, referred to Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd (No 2) [1996] FSR 36, referred to Prior v Lansdowne Press Pty Ltd (1975) 29 FLR 59, applied Ravenscroft v Herbert & New English Library Ltd [1980] RPC 193, applied International Writing Institute Inc v Rimila Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 250, applied Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1992) 46 IR 250, distinguished Beloit Canada Ltd v Valmet Oy (1995) 61 CPR (3d) 271, considered
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