Chanel Limited v Ayad [2005] FCA 820

Chanel Limited v Ayad [2005] FCA 820

The respondents were in default under Order 35A rule 2(2), the applicants proved service, ownership and licensing of the registered trade marks, infringement by the seized goods, jurisdiction, and the circumstances justifying relief; accordingly the Court exercised its power under Order 35A rule 3(2)(d) to enter default judgment and make orders including declarations, injunctions, delivery up, forfeiture of the seized goods, costs, and liberty concerning damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment in Proceedings Concerning Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Default Judgment Application Under Order 35 a of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Default judgment entered for the applicants against the first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'registered Trade Marks' 'exclusive Licence' 'imported Counterfeit Goods' 'customs Seizure' 'forfeiture to the Commonwealth' 'injunctive Relief' 'delivery Up' 'costs']
['intellectual Property' 'trade Marks' 'passing Off' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['default Judgment' 'registered Trade Marks' 'exclusive Licence' 'imported Counterfeit Goods' 'customs Seizure' 'forfeiture to the Commonwealth' 'injunctive Relief' 'delivery Up' 'costs']

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 Default Judgment in Proceedings Concerning Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Default Judgment Application Under Order 35 a of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were in default under Order 35A of the Federal Court Rules by failing to enter an appearance, file defences and attend directions hearings.' 'Whether the evidence established jurisdiction, the facts supporting the causes of action, and circumstances justifying default judgment.' "Whether goods seized by the Australian Customs Service infringed the first applicant's registered trade marks." 'Whether the seized goods should be forfeited to the Commonwealth under s 137(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were in default under Order 35A rule 2(2), the applicants proved service, ownership and licensing of the registered trade marks, infringement by the seized goods, jurisdiction, and the circumstances justifying relief; accordingly the Court exercised its power under Order 35A rule 3(2)(d) to enter default judgment and make orders including declarations, injunctions, delivery up, forfeiture of the seized goods, costs, and liberty concerning damages.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for the applicants against the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Order 35A(3)(d), judgment is entered in favour of the Applicants against the First and Second Respondents.' 'The orders be made as set out in [1] – [8] of the Application.' 'All goods currently in the possession of the Australian Customs Service, pursuant to seizure number V05/00255 and seizure number...