Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd v Paul's International Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 201

Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd v Paul's International Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 201

Given the proven contraventions of the Trade Practices Act and existence of some risk (even if not high) of further contraventions by the second respondent, it is appropriate to grant an injunction under s 80 of the Act for three years to restrain making misleading representations as to recommended retail price. Indemnity costs are refused as neither the conduct nor the rejection of the offer was sufficient to warrant such an order. Costs are awarded to the applicants on a party-party basis, discounted by 20% to reflect partial lack of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Final Orders After Principal Judgment / Post Judgment Orders and Costs
Outcome
Declarations made of trade mark infringement and contravention of s 52 and s 53(e) against the second respondent; injunction granted; delivery up orders made; cross-claim dismissed; costs order in favour of the applicants, discounted for partial success.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Infringement' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctions' 'costs' 'relief Under Trade Practices Act']
['intellectual Property Law' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['trade Mark Infringement' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctions' 'costs' 'relief Under Trade Practices Act']

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

Final Orders After Principal Judgment / Post Judgment Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether injunction should be granted under s 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) against the second respondent' 'Whether second respondent should be restrained from representations as to recommended retail price' 'Appropriateness of indemnity costs due to failure to comply with interlocutory order and rejection of settlement' 'Apportionment of costs given partial success/failure on claims']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the proven contraventions of the Trade Practices Act and existence of some risk (even if not high) of further contraventions by the second respondent, it is appropriate to grant an injunction under s 80 of the Act for three years to restrain making misleading representations as to recommended retail price. Indemnity costs are refused as neither the conduct nor the rejection of the offer was sufficient to warrant such an order. Costs are awarded to the applicants on a party-party basis, discounted by 20% to reflect partial lack of success.

Court Disposition

Declarations made of trade mark infringement and contravention of s 52 and s 53(e) against the second respondent; injunction granted; delivery up orders made; cross-claim dismissed; costs order in favour of the applicants, discounted for partial success.

Orders

  • ['Declarations as to infringement of Australian registered trade marks No. 930455 and 562442 by the second respondent' 'Declaration of contravention of s 52 and s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by the second respondent' 'Injunction restraining the second respondent for three years from making certain...