Suntory Ltd v Daiquiri Co Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 926
The second respondent had not filed an appearance, but the evidence showed he received reasonable notice of the motion and the orders sought by express post and by his telephone call to the applicants' solicitor, and chose not to participate. Although he asserted bankruptcy, the applicants no longer pursued damages or an account of profits against him, so the orders sought were not enforcement of a remedy in respect of a provable debt. The evidence concerning the registered Illusion trade mark, the Daiquiri Factory brochure and the business name registration justified declaratory and restraining orders. It was therefore appropriate to order service nunc pro tunc by prepaid post and to...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 July 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding / Notice of Motion for Judgment and Orders Against the Second Respondent; Undertakings Noted From the First and Third Respondents
- Outcome
- The Court declared that the second respondent infringed registered trade mark no. 680413, made injunctive, delivery up, verification and costs orders against him, ordered service of the notice of motion nunc pro tunc by prepaid post, delayed entry of the orders pending written notice, and noted undertakings by the...
- Legal Topics
- ['trade Mark Infringement' 'injunctive Relief' 'default Judgment' 'service of Notice of Motion' 'bankruptcy Stay for Provable Debts' 'undertakings to the Court']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding / Notice of Motion for Judgment and Orders Against the Second Respondent; Undertakings Noted From the First and Third Respondents
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the first and third respondents' undertakings should be noted by the Court." 'Whether the notice of motion against the second respondent could be treated as served by prepaid post nunc pro tunc despite non-compliance with personal service requirements.' 'Whether any bankruptcy of the second respondent prevented the Court from making the non-monetary orders sought.' 'Whether the evidence justified a declaration and restraints against the second respondent for infringement of registered trade mark no. 680413.']
Ratio Decidendi
The second respondent had not filed an appearance, but the evidence showed he received reasonable notice of the motion and the orders sought by express post and by his telephone call to the applicants' solicitor, and chose not to participate. Although he asserted bankruptcy, the applicants no longer pursued damages or an account of profits against him, so the orders sought were not enforcement of a remedy in respect of a provable debt. The evidence concerning the registered Illusion trade mark, the Daiquiri Factory brochure and the business name registration justified declaratory and restraining orders. It was therefore appropriate to order service nunc pro tunc by prepaid post and to...
Court Disposition
The Court declared that the second respondent infringed registered trade mark no. 680413, made injunctive, delivery up, verification and costs orders against him, ordered service of the notice of motion nunc pro tunc by prepaid post, delayed entry of the orders pending written notice, and noted undertakings by the...
Orders
- ['The second respondent has infringed registered trade mark no. 680413.' 'The notice of motion filed on 10 July 2001 be served on the second respondent by sending a copy thereof by prepaid post no later than 10 July 2001.' 'The second respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise, be restrained...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment