Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 372 Citation: Australian Postal Corporation v Digital Post Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 372
Parties: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION (ABN 28 864 970 579) v DIGITAL POST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 192 998 715), COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED (ACN 004 485 825), SALMAT LIMITED (ACN 002 724 638) and ZUMBOX INC
File number: VID 258 of 2012
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 4 April 2012
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Samsung Electronics Co Limited v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156
Date of hearing: 4 April 2012
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 23
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr W Houghton QC with Mr S Rebikoff
Solicitor for the Applicant: King and Wood Mallesons
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr C Golvan SC with Mr T Cordiner
Solicitor for the Respondents: Middletons
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 258 of 2012
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION (ABN 28 864 970 579)
Applicant
AND: DIGITAL POST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 192 998 715)
First Respondent
COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED (ACN 004 485 825)
Second Respondent
SALMAT LIMITED (ACN 002 724 638)
Third Respondent
ZUMBOX INC
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J DATE OF ORDER: 4 APRIL 2012 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
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