Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 986

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 986

The findings of knowledge against the Global/Impact respondents did not survive the Full Court judgment, so the copyright claims against them failed. Although the surviving findings showed that the Global/Impact respondents sold gaming machines containing counterfeit compliance plates and counterfeit game software, the trade mark claim failed because no single infringing machine or sufficiently identified counterfeit mark was produced or linked to particular transactions, making it impossible to conduct the required substantial identicality or deceptive similarity comparisons. The trade mark claim against the sixth respondent also failed for the same identification defect. Declaratory...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement and Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding Concerning Gaming Machines and Components / Remittal by the Full Court to Determine Copyright Relief and the Trade Mark Infringement Claim
Outcome
Claims against the first to third and fifth respondents dismissed with costs; claim against the fourth respondent dismissed with costs; declarations made against the sixth respondent for copyright infringement; trade mark infringement claims failed against all respondents; injunctive relief refused.
Legal Topics
['copyright Infringement in Gaming Machine Software and Compliance Plates' 'trade Mark Infringement Under S 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (cth)' 'admissibility and Use of Evidence Admitted Subject to an Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 136 Ruling' 'relief by Declaration and Injunction']
['copyright' 'trade Marks' 'evidence'] ['copyright Infringement in Gaming Machine Software and Compliance Plates' 'trade Mark Infringement Under S 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (cth)' 'admissibility and Use of Evidence Admitted Subject to an Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 136 Ruling' 'relief by Declaration and 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

Copyright Infringement and Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding Concerning Gaming Machines and Components / Remittal by the Full Court to Determine Copyright Relief and the Trade Mark Infringement Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What factual findings made at first instance survived the Full Court judgment for the purposes of the remittal.' 'What relief, if any, should be granted for copyright infringement arising under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).' "Whether the respondents infringed the applicants' registered trade marks under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)." 'Whether the evidence permitted the required comparison for substantial identicality or deceptive similarity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of knowledge against the Global/Impact respondents did not survive the Full Court judgment, so the copyright claims against them failed. Although the surviving findings showed that the Global/Impact respondents sold gaming machines containing counterfeit compliance plates and counterfeit game software, the trade mark claim failed because no single infringing machine or sufficiently identified counterfeit mark was produced or linked to particular transactions, making it impossible to conduct the required substantial identicality or deceptive similarity comparisons. The trade mark claim against the sixth respondent also failed for the same identification defect. Declaratory...

Court Disposition

Claims against the first to third and fifth respondents dismissed with costs; claim against the fourth respondent dismissed with costs; declarations made against the sixth respondent for copyright infringement; trade mark infringement claims failed against all respondents; injunctive relief refused.

Orders

  • ['The claim against the first to third and fifth respondents be dismissed with costs.' 'The claim against the fourth respondent be dismissed with costs.' 'The electronic gaming machines referred to in [133] of the decision of the Full Court in Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34,...