Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd and Others

[2005] FCA 1521

---

Gold Peg International Pty Ltd
vKovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd and Others

Court:

Judge: Crennan J

Legislative References:
Copyright Act 1968 - s 196(3); s 31(1)(b)(i); s 74(1)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - s 52; s 53(c); s 53(d)
Designs (Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 - The Act
Corporations Act 2001 - s 128(1); s 128(2); s 129(3); s 129(4); s 129(1)
Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) - s 53(1)(c)
Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (UK) - s 11
Registered Designs Act 1949 (UK) - s 1(a)
Designs Act 2003 (Cth) - s 46

Case References:
Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd - (1993) 42 FCR 470; 114 ALR 355; 27 IPR 133
Acohs Pty Ltd v RA Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd - (1997) 144 ALR 528
Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd - (1971) 2 NSWLR 278
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) - (1993) 176 CLR 300; 111 ALR 385; [1993] HCA 6
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Hastings - (1977) 16 ALR 363; 52 ALJR 20
Bauman v Fussell - [1978] RPC 485
Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd - [1964-5] NSWR 229
Blackie & Sons Ltd v Lothian Book Publishing Co Pty Ltd - (1921) 29 CLR 396
Blair v Osborne & Tompkins - [1971] 21 QB 78
Bramwell v Halcomb - (1836) 3 My & Cr 737; 40 ER 1110
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co - (1877) 2 App Cas 666
Bulurri Australia Pty Ltd v Oliver - (2000) 49 IPR 384; [2000] NSWSC 580
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd - (1995) 185 CLR 410; 131 ALR 422; [1995] HCA 24
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd - [1980] 2 NSWLR 851; 32 ALR 387; [1981] RPC 429
Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd - (2000) 202 CLR 45; 169 ALR 677; 46 IPR 481; [2000] HCA 12
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - [1893] 1 QB 256
Chatterton v Cave - (1878) 3 App Cas 483
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) - (1982) 149 CLR 337
Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd - (1991) 20 IPR 666
Commonwealth v Verwayen - (1990) 170 CLR 394; 95 ALR 321
ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd - (1992) 33 FCR 302; 106 ALR 465; 23 IPR 193
Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd - (1999) 202 CLR 1; 166 ALR 228; 45 IPR 353; [1999] HCA 49
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd - [1998] FSR 803; [2000] FSR 121; [2001] 1 All ER 700
Designers Guild Ltd v William Russell (Textiles) Pty Ltd (t/as Washington DC) - [2001] 1 All ER 700
Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd - (1999) 87 FCR 415; 161 ALR 503; 43 IPR 1; [1999] FCA 138
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd - (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
FAI Insurances Ltd v Advance Bank Australia Ltd - (1986) 68 ALR 133; 7 IPR 217
Fairline Shipping Corporation v Adamson - [1975] QB 180
Falcon v Famous Players Film Co - [1926] 2 KB 474
Felthouse v Bindley - (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869; 142 ER 1037
Fernald v Jay Lewis Productions Ltd - [1975] FSR 499
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron - [1963] 1 Ch 587; 1A IPR 331
Geographica Ltd v Penguin Books Ltd - [1985] FSR 208
Glamagard Pty Ltd v Enderslea Productions Pty Ltd - (1985) 1 NSWLR 138; 59 ALR 740; 4 IPR 113
Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2002] FCA 910
Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2004] FCA 1601
Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v Rover-Scott Boonar Ltd - (1990) 95 ALR 275
Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd - [1934] Ch 593
Hawkins v Clayton - (1988) 164 CLR 539; 78 ALR 69
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp - (1984) 156 CLR 41
Hutchence v South Seas Bubble Co Pty Ltd - (1986) 64 ALR 330; 6 IPR 473
Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd - (1992) 39 FCR 348; 111 ALR 577; 25 IPR 65
Ironside v HM Attorney-General - [1988] RPC 197
Jarrold v Houlston - (1857) 3 K & J 708; 69 ER 1294
John Richardson Computers Ltd v Flanders - (1993) 26 IPR 367; [1993] FSR 497
Kevlacat Pty Ltd v Trailcraft Marine Pty Ltd - (1987) 79 ALR 534; 11 IPR 77
Kipling v Genatosan Ltd - [1917-23] MacG Cop Cas 203
LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd - (1979) 1A IPR 359
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd - [1964] 1 WLR 273; [1964] 1 All ER 465
Liverpool City Council v Irwin - [1977] AC 239
Longman Group Ltd v Carrington Technical Institute Board - [1991] 2 NZLR 574; (1990) 20 IPR 264
MJA Scientifics International Pty Ltd v SC Johnson & Son Pty Ltd - (1999) 43 IPR 287
MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (Western Australia) - (1975) 133 CLR 125
Massine v De Basil - [1936-45] MacG Cop Cas 223
Meikle v Maufe - [1941] 3 All ER 144
Merchant Adventurers Ltd v M Grew & Co Ltd - [1972] Ch 242; [1971] 2 All ER 657; [1973] RPC 1
Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd - (1994) 54 FCR 240; 130 ALR 659; 30 IPR 209
Minister for Mineral Resources v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd - (1999) 40 IPR 403
Murray v King - (1984) 4 FCR 1
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Copyright Agency Ltd - (1996) 65 FCR 399; 136 ALR 273; 34 IPR 53
Nicholas Advanced Vehicle Systems Inc v Rees - [1970] RPC 127
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd - (1982) 149 CLR 191; 42 ALR 1; 1A IPR 684
Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd - (2005) 219 ALR 373
Phillips Electronique v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd - [1995] EMLR 472
Press-Form Pty Ltd v Henderson's Ltd - (1993) 40 FCR 274; 112 ALR 671; 26 IPR 113
R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans - [2004] 31 FSR 673
R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans - [2005] All ER (D) 213
Ravenscroft v Herbert & New English Library - [1980] RPC 193
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc - (1990) 17 IPR 1; [1990] 1 All ER 873
Ricordi & Co (London) Ltd v Clayton & Waller Ltd - [1928-35] MacG Cop Cas 154
Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc - (1998) 41 IPR 235
Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank - [1966] 3 All ER 128; [1966] 1 WLR 1428
Royal British Bank v Turquand - (1856) 119 ER 886
Safe Sport Australia Pty Ltd v Puma Australia Pty Ltd - (1985) 4 IPR 120
Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd v Robinson - (1917) 23 CLR 49; [1917] HCA 14
Shacklady v Atkins - (1994) 126 ALR 707; 30 IPR 387
Skybase Nominees Pty Ltd v Fortuity Pty Ltd - (1996) 36 IPR 529
Solar Thompson Engineering Co Ltd v Boston - [1977] RPC 537
South Australia Asset Management Corp v Montague Ltd - [1997] AC 191
Spectravest Inc v Aperknit Ltd - [1988] FSR 161
Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Ltd - [1971] Ch 1007; [1971] 3 All ER 570
Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd - (1982) 42 ALR 177
Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd - (2004) 61 IPR 378; [2004] FCAFC 78
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd - [1971] 2 QB 163
University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd - [1916] 2 Ch 601; (1916) 1B IPR 186
University of New South Wales v Moorhouse - (1975) 133 CLR 1; 6 ALR 193
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher - (1988) 164 CLR 387; 76 ALR 513
Wilson v Weiss Art Pty Ltd - (1995) 31 IPR 432

Hearing date: 18-22, 25-29 October, 5, 26 November 2005
Judgment date: 8 December 2005

Melbourne

---

Orders

The court declares that:

(1)

The applicant is the legal owner of the copyright in the Alfa Laval drawings referred to in the particulars to para 7 of the third further amended statement of claim.

(2)

The applicant is the equitable owner of the copyright in the RotaTherm drawings referred to in para 13 of the third further amended statement of claim (which includes the "Gold Peg title block drawings", as listed in Annex A to the applicant's closing submissions).

(3)

The first respondent has breached the agreement (as defined in para 11 of the third further amended statement of claim).

(4)

The conduct of the first respondent in making the representations (as defined in para 16 of the third further amended statement of claim) constitutes conduct in breach of the provisions of ss 52, 53(c) and (d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA).

(5)

The second respondent was or has been directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in or a party to the abovementioned contraventions by the first respondent of the TPA within the meaning of s 75B of the TPA, and authorised the conduct of the first respondent constituting breach of the TPA.

(6)

The conduct of the first respondent described by reference to paras 15, 16, 18, 24 and 25 of the third further amended statement of claim herein constitutes passing off.

The court orders that:

(7)

The first respondent by itself, its servants or agents be restrained forthwith from representing in the course of trade or commerce that:

(a)

the first respondent is authorised by the applicant to manufacture and/or supply cooking machines the same as or substantially the same as the applicant's RotaTherm cookers and/or to provide after sales service for the applicant's RotaTherm cookers;

(b)

the first respondent is the owner of intellectual property rights in the applicant's RotaTherm cookers;

(c)

the first respondent is entitled to use the RotaTherm drawings to manufacture and/or supply cooking machines;

(d)

the first respondent's Fusion cooker is sponsored by, approved by, endorsed by and/or affiliated with the applicant.

(8)

The second respondent by himself, his servants or his agents or any of them howsoever be restrained forthwith from aiding or abetting, counselling or procuring the first respondent in engaging in the conduct referred to in order 7 herein.

(9)

The respondents forthwith execute a deed of assignment transferring legal ownership of the copyright in the RotaTherm drawings (which includes the Gold Peg title block drawings) to the applicant.

(10)

There be delivery up to the applicant on oath of all copies of:

(a)

the Alfa Laval drawings;

(b)

the RotaTherm drawings (or the Gold Peg title block drawings), in the respondents' possession, custody or power.

(11)

The respondents, until further order, keep full and proper accounts of the sales (and profits from sales) of products, if any, whether cooker components or cookers made or authorised by them to be made in accordance with the Alfa Laval drawings, the RotaTherm drawings or any drawings which are copies of such drawings, save and except for drawings relating to steam injectors depicted in Ex J294, drawings for the motor and motor shaft, drawings for mechanical seals and drawings for bottom elbows made in accordance with the Great Lakes bottom elbow drawings.

(12)

The cross-claim be dismissed.

(13)

The cross-claimant pay the cross-respondent's cost of the cross-claim.

(14)

The costs other than those on the cross-claim be reserved.

(15)

The matter be adjourned to 10.15 am on 7 December 2005 before Kenny J for further orders and directions.

Annexure A

DAVID ROLPH
SOLICITOR