Al Hayat Publishing Co Ltd v Ahmed Sokarno Eman Mohamed & Ors [1997] FCA 122

Al Hayat Publishing Co Ltd v Ahmed Sokarno Eman Mohamed & Ors [1997] FCA 122

The application failed because the single handwritten letter to the Trade Marks Office was sent in response to an official request for clarification in the routine processing of a trade mark application and was not properly characterised as use of the Al Hayat name or logo in or in relation to the promotion, advertising, distribution or sale of newspapers, magazines or printed matter or publishing services. The letter was not directed to publicity, did not clearly fall within the injunction, did not evidence a present intention to use the mark contrary to the Court's orders, and, even if it were a formal breach, was inadvertent and de minimis with no tendency to detract from the authority...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Contempt of Court / Application Filed on 20 December 1996 Seeking a Finding That the First Respondent Was Guilty of Contempt and a Substantial Fine; Heard on 20 February 1997 With No Appearance by or for the First Respondent; Judgment Delivered on 28 February 1997.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['breach of Court Order' 'use of Name and Logo' 'trade Marks Correspondence' 'intention to Use Mark' 'criminal Standard of Proof in Contempt' 'construction of Injunction']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt of Court'] ['breach of Court Order' 'use of Name and Logo' 'trade Marks Correspondence' 'intention to Use Mark' 'criminal Standard of Proof in Contempt' 'construction of Injunction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Contempt of Court / Application Filed on 20 December 1996 Seeking a Finding That the First Respondent Was Guilty of Contempt and a Substantial Fine; Heard on 20 February 1997 With No Appearance by or for the First Respondent; Judgment Delivered on 28 February 1997.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent breached the injunction made on 22 March 1996 by using the words "Al Hayat" and the Mark in a letter to the Registrar of Trade Marks.' 'Whether the use of the name and logo in the letter was use in or in relation to the promotion, advertising, distribution or sale of newspapers, magazines and printed matter or publishing services.' "Whether the letter evidenced an intention to use the name and logo in breach of the Court's orders." 'Whether any breach was sufficiently clear and substantial to constitute contempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the single handwritten letter to the Trade Marks Office was sent in response to an official request for clarification in the routine processing of a trade mark application and was not properly characterised as use of the Al Hayat name or logo in or in relation to the promotion, advertising, distribution or sale of newspapers, magazines or printed matter or publishing services. The letter was not directed to publicity, did not clearly fall within the injunction, did not evidence a present intention to use the mark contrary to the Court's orders, and, even if it were a formal breach, was inadvertent and de minimis with no tendency to detract from the authority...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']