Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 419 File number: NSD 1389 of 2019
Judgment of: YATES J
Date of judgment: 26 April 2024
Catchwords: COSTS – unsuccessful action for trade mark infringement – whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis following the unsuccessful applicant's non-acceptance of a Calderbank offer or because the unsuccessful applicant ought to have recognised from a given date that its case on infringement could not succeed – whether costs should be apportioned depending on the parties' mixed success in respect of the issues raised at trial – where the questions of whether costs should be awarded on a lump sum basis and the quantum of such costs are referred to a Registrar acting as a referee for inquiry and report
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 54A Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 41, 58, 88, 122 and 124
Cases cited: Australian Conservation Foundation v Forestry Commission [1988] FCA 225; 81 ALR 166 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1895 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 894 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1258 Centor Australia Pty Ltd v RMD Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 1407 Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Energy Beverages LLC v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 394 Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (No 2) [2015] HCA 53; 327 ALR 192 Firstmac Limited v Zip Co Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1074 Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 145 Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v D.F. McCloy Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 45; 28 FCR 172 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27; 247 FCR 61 Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney South West Area Health Service (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 171 Marmax Investments Pty Ltd v RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 155 Merial Inc v Intervet International BV (No 4) [2017] FCA 223 The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCAFC 44 The State of Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 174
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