Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Muscat v Le [2003] FCA 1540 COPYRIGHT – infringement – garments – design drawing – dressmaking pattern – whether copied – inference from similarities – reproduction – three-dimensional reproduction – prototype garment – artistic craftsmanship – defence to infringement – design applied industrially – plan to plan copying Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 10(1), 14, 21(3)(a), 74, 77(1), 77(2), 77(3) Copyright Act 1911 (UK) Copyright Regulations 1969 reg 17(1)(a) Designs Act 1906 (Cth) s 4 Designs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Cth) Designs Regulations 1982 reg 11 Fair Trading Act (Vic) s 9 Amalgamated Mining Services Pty Ltd v Warman International Ltd (1992) 24 IPR 461 followed Burke and Margot Burke, Limited v Spicers Dress Designs [1936] Ch 400 referred to Compagnie Industrielle de Precontrainte et D'Equipment des Constructions SA v First Melbourne Securities Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 512 followed Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd (1998) 86 FCR 154 referred to Cuisenaire v Reed [1963] VR 719 referred to Dalgety Australia Operations Ltd v FF Seeley Nominees Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 97 followed Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Rivers (Australia) Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 136 cited Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 415 followed Edwards Hot Water Systems v S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd (1983) 1 IPR 228 cited Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. v Bron [1963] Ch 587 followed George Hensher Ltd. v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs.) Ltd. [1976] AC 64 applied Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v Rover Scott Bonnar Ltd (1990) 17 IPR 417 cited Guild v Eskandar Limited [2001] FSR 645 applied Hosokawa Micron International Inc v Fortune (1990) 26 FCR 393 cited J. Bernstein Ltd. v Sydney Murray Ltd [1981] RPC 303, 329 cited Kevlacat Pty Ltd v Trailcraft Marine Pty Ltd (1987) 11 IPR 77 cited King Features Syndicate, Incorporated v O. and M. Kleeman, Limited [1941] AC 417 referred to Klarman (H.) Ld v Henshaw Linen Supplies [1960] RPC 150 cited Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 90 cited Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v William Hill (Football) Ltd. [1964] 1 WLR 273 followed Lerose Limited v Hawick Jersey International Limited [1974] RPC 42 cited Merlet v Mothercare plc (1984) 2 IPR 456 disapproved Pacific Gaming Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Ltd (2001) 116 FCR 448 cited Parkdale Customs Build Furniture Proprietary Limited v Puxu Proprietary Limited (1982) 149 CLR 191 applied Radley Gowns Ltd. v Costas Spyrou (trading as "Touch of Class" and "Fiesta Girl") [1975] FSPLR 455 cited Regina v Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Ford Motor Co. Ltd. [1995] 1 WLR 18 followed S. W. Hart & Co. Proprietary Limited v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466 referred to Sifam Electrical Instrument Company Limited v Sangamo Weston Limited [1973] RPC 899 followed Shacklady v Atkins (1994) 30 IPR 387 followed Thornton Hall Manufacturing Ltd v Shanton Apparel Ltd (No 2) [1989] 1 NZLR 239 cited University of London Press, Limited v University Tutorial Press, Limited [1916] 2 Ch 601 disapproved Wrangler Apparel Corp v Classic Boots Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 19 doubted Australian Law Reform Commission, Designs, Report No 74 (1995) Laddie, Prescott and Vittoria, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, (2nd ed, 1995), vol 1 THERESA MUSCAT v QUANG TIEN LE, MYCHI TAT, DUNG TIEN LE, DAT-TIEN LE and LOAN LE V 549 of 2002
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