Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v OZI4X4 Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1361

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v OZI4X4 Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1361

Consent orders for injunctive relief can be made where sought by the parties to effect settlement, even absent evidence or agreed facts, as consent imports necessary admissions; in the circumstances, there is no jurisdictional impediment to making such orders. The application for indemnity costs fails because the respondents' conduct was not unreasonable, and no basis exists for departing from the usual course on costs; there should be no order as to costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha; Second Applicant: Toyota Customizing & Development Co Ltd; Third Applicant: Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited; First Respondent: OZI4X4 Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Huss Safi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property/trade Mark and Consumer Law Proceeding / Final Orders and Costs Following Settlement, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed by consent, injunctive consent orders made, no order as to costs, indemnity costs application refused
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Passing Off, Injunctions, Consent Orders, Costs – Indemnity Costs, Settlement Agreements
Intellectual Property Consumer Law Practice and Procedure Trade Marks Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Passing Off Injunctions Consent Orders +2 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha

First Applicant

Toyota Customizing & Development Co Ltd

Second Applicant

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited

Third Applicant

OZI4X4 Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Huss Safi

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property/trade Mark and Consumer Law Proceeding / Final Orders and Costs Following Settlement, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctive orders should be made by consent in absence of evidence or agreed facts
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to indemnity costs against the respondents from 26 April 2023

Ratio Decidendi

Consent orders for injunctive relief can be made where sought by the parties to effect settlement, even absent evidence or agreed facts, as consent imports necessary admissions; in the circumstances, there is no jurisdictional impediment to making such orders. The application for indemnity costs fails because the respondents' conduct was not unreasonable, and no basis exists for departing from the usual course on costs; there should be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed by consent, injunctive consent orders made, no order as to costs, indemnity costs application refused

Orders

  • The First Respondent (OZI4x4 Pty Ltd) is restrained from advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling or supplying the Counterfeit or Impugned Aftermarket Products as defined; and from various representations or passing off as associated with the Applicants (Toyota entities) or their products, sponsorship,...
  • The Second Respondent (Huss Safi) is restrained from aiding or being knowingly concerned in any such contravention or passing off by OZI4x4 Pty Ltd.