Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275

The respondents, through authorisation and direct involvement, infringed the applicants' copyright by commissioning and knowingly reproducing artwork and software for approximately 400 EGMs. The evidence supported an assessment of compensatory damages based on net profit from infringing sales, and additional damages were awarded against Vidtech and Mr Parry for flagrancy. Trade mark and misleading conduct claims were not made out due to lack of evidence of sales/use in Australia and misled persons being outside Australia.

Parties
First Applicant: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Aristocrat International Pty Limited; First Respondent: Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Limited (also DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Limited (in liquidation)); Second Respondent: David Allan Parry; Third Respondent: Rhonda Denise Parry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Copyright and Trade Practices Action / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for applicants against each respondent.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Authorisation of Infringement, Assessment of Damages, Additional Damages, Trade Mark Infringement, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
Copyright Trade Marks Trade Practices Copyright Infringement Authorisation of Infringement Assessment of Damages Additional Damages Trade Mark Infringement +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited

First Applicant

Aristocrat International Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Limited (also DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Limited (in liquidation))

First Respondent

David Allan Parry

Second Respondent

Rhonda Denise Parry

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Copyright and Trade Practices Action / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents authorised infringement of Aristocrat's copyright in artwork and software
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established infringement of trade marks
  3. 3 Whether respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, through authorisation and direct involvement, infringed the applicants' copyright by commissioning and knowingly reproducing artwork and software for approximately 400 EGMs. The evidence supported an assessment of compensatory damages based on net profit from infringing sales, and additional damages were awarded against Vidtech and Mr Parry for flagrancy. Trade mark and misleading conduct claims were not made out due to lack of evidence of sales/use in Australia and misled persons being outside Australia.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicants against each respondent.

Orders

  • Amend first respondent name to DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Limited (in liquidation)
  • Judgment entered against each respondent: $139,200 for first and second respondents; $99,200 for third respondent