Paramount Pictures Corporation v Hasluck [2006] FCA 1431

Paramount Pictures Corporation v Hasluck [2006] FCA 1431

Because the applicants proved infringement but did not adduce evidence of the royalties or licence fees they would have received, despite that evidence being within their knowledge, only nominal damages could be awarded for loss of sales. Exemplary damages were unavailable under s 126 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). A modest compensatory sum was allowed for product devaluation in deference to authority and a liberal approach to assessment, but no damages were awarded for loss of reputation because there was no logical evidentiary basis to infer reputational harm from the eBay feedback or sales of pirated DVDs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding Seeking Assessment of Damages / Reasons for Judgment on Assessment of Damages After Undefended Proceeding and Consent Injunctions
Outcome
Each applicant was awarded damages against the second respondent; the claim for exemplary damages and damages for loss of reputation was rejected.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Infringement' 'assessment of Compensatory Damages' 'loss of Sales' 'product Devaluation' 'loss of Reputation' 'exemplary Damages' 'prejudgment Interest' 'costs']
['intellectual Property' 'trade Marks' 'damages'] ['trade Mark Infringement' 'assessment of Compensatory Damages' 'loss of Sales' 'product Devaluation' 'loss of Reputation' 'exemplary Damages' 'prejudgment Interest' '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

Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding Seeking Assessment of Damages / Reasons for Judgment on Assessment of Damages After Undefended Proceeding and Consent Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What damages should be awarded for trade mark infringement arising from the sale of pirated DVDs bearing the applicants' trade marks." 'Whether exemplary damages are available under s 126 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicants proved compensable loss of sales or lost royalties/licence fees.' "Whether damages should be awarded for devaluation of the applicants' products." 'Whether damages should be awarded for loss of reputation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants proved infringement but did not adduce evidence of the royalties or licence fees they would have received, despite that evidence being within their knowledge, only nominal damages could be awarded for loss of sales. Exemplary damages were unavailable under s 126 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). A modest compensatory sum was allowed for product devaluation in deference to authority and a liberal approach to assessment, but no damages were awarded for loss of reputation because there was no logical evidentiary basis to infer reputational harm from the eBay feedback or sales of pirated DVDs.

Court Disposition

Each applicant was awarded damages against the second respondent; the claim for exemplary damages and damages for loss of reputation was rejected.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent is to pay to each of the applicants damages in the sum of $1,635 comprising nominal damages of $500 for loss of sales, damages of $1,000 for devaluation of product, and prejudgment interest of $135 calculated at 6% from 1 May 2005 to 1 November 2006.' "The second respondent is to pay half the...