Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Limited [2000] FCA 1852
COPYRIGHT – copyright in computer software – infringement – counterfeit copies obtained by investigators and under Anton Piller orders – copies of software sold consistently at below market rates – inference that these copies were also counterfeit – liability of joint tortfeasors – whether director and general manager procured or directed infringements TRADE MARKS – marks in respect of software, computer mice and computer manuals – infringement – infringing products obtained by investigators and under Anton Piller order – liability of joint tortfeasors – whether director and general manager procured or directed infringements TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether sale of products which infringed copyright and trade marks of applicant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct – likely assumptions by purchasers as to quality of goods, guarantees by applicant and quiet enjoyment of infringing products – whether director or general manager were persons involved in misleading or deceptive conduct DAMAGES – liability under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 115(2) – whether "licence fee" approach appropriate – liability under s 115(4) – flagrancy of infringement INJUNCTIONS – whether injunctions in broad terms should be granted against "dishonest" or "untrustworthy" respondents
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 38, 115, 126 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 120 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53, 75B Federal Court Rules O18 r 2
Raben Footwear v Polygram Records (1997) 75 FCR 88, referred to Microsoft v Auschina Polaris (1996) 71 FCR 231, followed Henley Arch v Clarendon Homes (1998) 41 IPR 443, cited Polygram Records Pty Ltd v Monash Records (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 10 FCR 332, considered Wheeler Grace & Pierucci v Wright (1989) 16 IPR 189, followed Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69, considered Microsoft Corporation v ATIFO Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 643, cited Bailey v Namol (1994) 53 FCR 102, cited Canterbury Park Race Course Co Ltd v Hopkins (1932) 49 WN (NSW) 27, Coflexip SA v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Limited [1999] FSR 473, cited Microsoft Corporation v Plato Technology Limited [1999] FSR 834, cited MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS v GOODVIEW ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED (ACN 077-222-096) (trading as GOLDEN SQUARE COMPUTER WHOLESALES CO) & ORS N 145 of 1999 BRANSON J SYDNEY 15 DECEMBER 2000
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