In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772 File number: NSD 1746 of 2017

Judge: KATZMANN J

Date of judgment: 5 June 2020

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — appropriate form of injunctions following findings of trade mark infringement, contraventions of Australian Consumer Law, and passing off — application for stay of injunctions, orders for delivery-up and destruction of infringing materials and costs — whether grounds of appeal reasonably arguable — whether appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay — whether, absent a stay, respondents would suffer irreparable harm — where no offer of security made by prospective appellants but undertakings given — whether balance of convenience favours prospective appellants — other relevant considerations

Cases cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (receivers appointed) (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation (No 4) [2018] FCA 1316; (2018) 136 IPR 1 Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 168; 147 IPR 386 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 302 Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] VSCA 122 Melbourne Chinese Press Pty Ltd v Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 997 Mitolo Wines Aust Pty Ltd (as trustee of the Mitolo Wine Trust) v Vito Mitolo & Son Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1140; 144 IPR 22 Phillip Morris (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nixon [1999] FCA 1281 Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corp (1996) 67 FCR 65 Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd t/as Sydneywide Bottlers Australia [2001] FCA 1750 Solarhart Industries Pty Ltd v Solar Shop Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 780; 282 ALR 43;92 IPR 197 Westaflex (Aust) Pty Ltd v Wood (1990) 18 IPR 168 Wooldridge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] FCA 349; 106 ACSR 551