Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Bed Bath 'N' Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 226 File number: VID 314 of 2021
Judgment of: ROFE J
Date of judgment: 13 March 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — scope of declarations and injunctions — whether injunctions restraining use of marks that are "substantially identical" or "similar" to the infringing mark are available for misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. COSTS — whether costs should be awarded on an issue-by-issue basis — causes of action not discrete and separable — whether respondent should pay the costs of affidavits filed but not read by the applicant who was successful on relief — relevance of overarching obligations in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) — general award of costs to the applicant appropriate. COSTS — whether applicant entitled to indemnity costs pursuant to r 25.14(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) following rejected offer of compromise — whether judgment more favourable than the terms of the offer —whether refusal of offer was unreasonable — whether an order inconsistent with r 25.14(3) should be made under r 1.35 — indemnity costs ordered.
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Bed Bath 'N' Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1587 Callan v Chawk (Costs) [2023] FCA 1198 Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corp (No 2) (2019) 147 IPR 386 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2015) 237 FCR 127 JMC Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Costs) [2023] FCAFC 95 Jusand Nominees Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 867 Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries Inc (No 2) (2013) 103 IPR 395 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd (2016) 247 FCR 61 Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 118 MMD Design and Consultancy Limited v Camco Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1416 Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1618 Russell v Australian Broadcasting Corp (No 4) [2023] FCA 1279 Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 158 Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 104 Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd (2023) 408 ALR 195 State Government Insurance Corp v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1991) 28 FCR 511 Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Ltd (2021) 386 ALR 237 Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd v Gorst [2017] FCAFC 34 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Taylor v August and Pemberton Pty Ltd (Costs) [2023] FCA 1575 Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd (2014) 107 IPR 333 Vivo International Corp Pty Ltd v Tivo Inc (2012) 99 IPR 1
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