Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Boyd v Wild Hibiscus Flower Company Pty Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 73 Citation: Boyd v Wild Hibiscus Flower Company Pty Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 73
Parties: JAMES BOYD and LIMEBURST PTY LTD (ACN 115 684 243) v WILD HIBISCUS FLOWER COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 115 057 497), LEE DANIEL ETHERINGTON and JOCELYN LILY GALE ETHERINGTON
File number: NSD 8 of 2012
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 9 January 2012
Date of hearing: 9 January 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 14
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr SA Benson
Solicitor for the Applicants: Hedges Bhatty
Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Y Hazan of Hazan Hollander
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 8 of 2012
BETWEEN: JAMES BOYD
First Applicant
LIMEBURST PTY LTD (ACN 115 684 243)
Second Applicant
AND: WILD HIBISCUS FLOWER COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 115 057 497)
First Respondent
LEE DANIEL ETHERINGTON
Second Respondent
JOCELYN LILY GALE ETHERINGTON
Third Respondent
JUDGE: FOSTER J DATE OF ORDER: 9 JANUARY 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. In relation to the affidavit of James Boyd sworn on 23 December 2011 and filed herein on behalf of the applicants: (a) Paragraph 10 be admitted into evidence; (b) The whole of paragraph 11 be rejected; (c) Paragraph 12 be admitted into evidence but be regarded as limited to the use of the trade marks identified in the paragraph and to the use of such other trade marks as may appear from Annexure G; and (d) Otherwise, the balance of that affidavit and all of the annexures to that affidavit be admitted into evidence. 2. The affidavit of Luke Bhatty, sworn on 5 January 2012 and filed herein on behalf of the applicants, be regarded only as a submission in respect of the applicants' application for interlocutory relief. 3. The items marked as "MFI-A" tendered by the applicants be rejected. 4. The items marked as "MFI-B" tendered by the applicants be rejected. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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