Rip Curl International Pty Ltd v Phone Lab Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1215

Rip Curl International Pty Ltd v Phone Lab Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1215

Deliberate, repeated, and wilful contempt of court orders in trade mark infringement proceedings justifies substantial fines for the corporate respondent, a fine for the directly involved individual, and suspended prison terms for individual directors, with costs awarded on a generous basis to applicants due to full admissions and contumacious conduct.

Parties
First Applicant: Rip Curl International Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Mambo Graphics Pty Ltd; Third Applicant: Australian Rugby Union Limited; Fourth Applicant: Nokia Corporation; First Respondent: Phone Lab Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Andrew Cheng; Third Respondent: Jeff Wang; Fourth Respondent: Joan Phoi Man Vong trading as D G Tel; Fifth Respondent: George Dib
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt / Judgment on Penalty for Contempt
Outcome
Contempt proven against first, second, and third respondents; penalties imposed; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Trade Mark Orders, Penalties for Contempt, Costs in Contempt Proceedings
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Trade Mark Orders Penalties for Contempt Costs in Contempt Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rip Curl International Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Mambo Graphics Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Australian Rugby Union Limited

Third Applicant

Nokia Corporation

Fourth Applicant

Phone Lab Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Andrew Cheng

Second Respondent

Jeff Wang

Third Respondent

Joan Phoi Man Vong trading as D G Tel

Fourth Respondent

George Dib

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt / Judgment on Penalty for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty should be imposed for admitted wilful and contumacious contempt of court orders relating to trade mark infringements?
  2. 2 Should suspended prison sentences and/or fines be imposed for repeated breaches?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate costs order in contempt proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate, repeated, and wilful contempt of court orders in trade mark infringement proceedings justifies substantial fines for the corporate respondent, a fine for the directly involved individual, and suspended prison terms for individual directors, with costs awarded on a generous basis to applicants due to full admissions and contumacious conduct.

Court Disposition

Contempt proven against first, second, and third respondents; penalties imposed; costs ordered.

Orders

  • First respondent to pay $38,500 by way of penalty for contempts on or before 28 October 2004.
  • Third respondent to pay $5,000 by way of penalty for contempt on or before 28 October 2004.