NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Luxottica Retail Australia v Grant & Ors [2009] NSWSC 126
HEARING DATE(S) : 23 & 24/02/09
JUDGMENT DATE : 9 March 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity
JUDGMENT OF : White J
DECISION : Refer to para 53 of judgment.
CATCHWORDS : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - copyright – employee emailed employer's documents to which copyright attached, to her home email address – infringement of copyright under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – nominal damages awarded - no additional damages awarded under Copyright Act 1968
LEGISLATION CITED : Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWSC 849; (2004) 184 FLR 121 Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 40; (2007) 157 FCR 564 Raben Footwear Pty Ltd v Polygram Records Inc (1997) 75 FCR 88 Bailey v Namol Pty Ltd (1994) 53 FCR 102 Sony Entertainment (Australia) Ltd v Smith [2005] FCA 228; (2005) 215 ALR 788 Autodesk Inc v Yee (1996) 68 FCR 391 CASES CITED : Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] HCA 70; (1998) 196 CLR 1 International Writing Institute Inc v Rimila Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 250 Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2008] FCA 746; (2008) 76 IPR 763 Pollock v J C Williamson Ltd [1923] VLR 225; 29 ALR 133 Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1621 Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2 Polygram Pty Ltd v Golden Editions Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 565
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