Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel [1999] FCA 1399
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth) – whether expenses fall within qualifying export development expenditure – primary and principal purpose of expenditure – how assessed – subjective and objective evidence – mis-statement by Tribunal in relation to purpose – conflating of objective and subjective evidence with objective and subjective purposes – substantive fact finding function undertaken by Tribunal – no underlying error of principle – no reviewable error – eligible industrial property rights – whether grant claimants owned eligible industrial property rights – consideration of rights contemplated by copyright in definition of eligible industrial property – whether claimed expenditure related to the disposal of eligible industrial property rights – copyright in software and ancillary works – distribution of CD ROM disks incorporating software – distribution to travel agents – reservation of intellectual property by licensor – no publication – no exercise of rights comprised in copyright – no eligible industrial property rights owned by claimants – no entitlement to grant. WORDS AND PHRASES – "qualifying export development expenditure" – "primary and principal purpose" – "eligible industrial property rights" – "copyright". Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth) ss 31, 11Z(8), 38, 12(2), 14(1), 11A(1), 3(1) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 10, 29, 31, 13, 15 Patents Act 1990 s 13 Trade Marks Act 1995 s 20 Nomad Films International Pty Ltd v Export Development Grants Board (1986) 11 FCR 67, discussed Australian Trade Commission v F & F Asia Pty Ltd (1996) 69 FCR 252, referred to Parker Pen (Aust) Pty Ltd v Export Development Grants Board (1983) 46 ALR 612, applied Export Development Grants Board v Miller Pohang Coal Co Pty Ltd (1985) 61 ALR 125, cited Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280, applied Australian Trade Commission v Film Funding and Management Pty Ltd (1990) 24 FCR 595, cited Autodesk Inc v Dyason (1992) 173 CLR 331, cited Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 88, applied Australian Trade Commission v World Geoscience Corporation Ltd (Unrep, 20/8/97, Kiefel J), cited Jolley v FCT (1989) 86 ALR 297, cited Trade Practices Commission v Abbco Iceworks Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 96, cited Kervan Trading Pty Ltd v Aktas (1987) 8 IPR 583, cited Australian Trade Commission v Correia and Zaknich Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 153, cited
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