Wilson, Allen John & Anor v Hollywood Toys (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 126

Wilson, Allen John & Anor v Hollywood Toys (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 126

Aussie Brumby did not infringe Design No. 107513 because, judged by the eye, its shape and configuration had apparent and substantial differences from the registered design, including more stylised or cartoon-like features, a different body shape, and fundamentally different proportions. Although the respondents knowingly copied and improved upon the Hollywood Horse and such copying was fraudulent in the technical sense, the resulting toy was not a copy of the registered design disguised by differences. What was taken was the idea, not the protected design.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Design Infringement Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The proceeding was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['registered Design Infringement' 'obvious Imitation' 'fraudulent Imitation' 'statement of Monopoly' 'prior Art' 'expert Evidence']
['intellectual Property' 'designs'] ['registered Design Infringement' 'obvious Imitation' 'fraudulent Imitation' 'statement of Monopoly' 'prior Art' 'expert Evidence']

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

Design Infringement Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Aussie Brumby applied the registered design or an obvious or fraudulent imitation of Design No. 107513 for an animal toy.' 'Whether the statement of monopoly meant the design was protected as a whole as depicted in the drawings.' 'What weight should be given to expert evidence on design infringement.' 'Whether prior art relied upon by the respondents was relevant to infringement.']

Ratio Decidendi

Aussie Brumby did not infringe Design No. 107513 because, judged by the eye, its shape and configuration had apparent and substantial differences from the registered design, including more stylised or cartoon-like features, a different body shape, and fundamentally different proportions. Although the respondents knowingly copied and improved upon the Hollywood Horse and such copying was fraudulent in the technical sense, the resulting toy was not a copy of the registered design disguised by differences. What was taken was the idea, not the protected design.

Court Disposition

The proceeding was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.' "The Applicant pay the First and Third Respondents' taxed costs of the proceeding."]