Lamont v Malishus Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 237

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lamont v Malishus Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 237 Appeal from: Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No. 4) [2019] FCCA 3206

File number: NSD 33 of 2020

Judgment of: BURLEY J

Date of judgment: 18 March 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellant was self-represented before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ("FCCA") – whether FCCA erred by denying appellant right to fair hearing – whether FCCA erred by failing to inform appellant of court practices and procedures – relevant legal principles – relevance of characteristics of litigant and proceedings – no error found TRADE MARKS – whether FCCA erred in determining that use by fourth respondent of impugned trade mark was not use in Australia – no error found

Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law') Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 120 and 126 Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 6.14, 14.02(1), 15A.02(1) and 15A.17 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 12.01

Cases cited: Abram v Bank of New Zealand [1996] FCA 635; ATPR 41-507 Boensch v Somerville Legal [2021] FCAFC 79 Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé SA (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 153; 115 IPR 421 Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; 177 CLR 292 Flightdeck Geelong Pty Ltd v All Options Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 138; 280 FCR 479 Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 3) [2018] FCCA 1294 Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No. 2) [2018] FCCA 895 Lamont v Malishus & Ors [2018] FCCA 423 Lamont v Malishus Limited [2020] FCA 1535 MacPherson v R [1981] HCA 46; 147 CLR 512 Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 84 Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23; 68 ALJR 509 Rajski v Scitec Corp Pty Ltd [1986] NSWCA 1 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1 Tomasevic v Travaglini [2007] VSC 337; 17 VR 100 Ward Group Pty Ltd v Brodie & Stone Plc [2005] FCA 471; 143 FCR 479