Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 747

Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 747

The respondents were in default of the Court's discovery orders, had been served with the notice of motion, did not appear and did not oppose the orders. The evidence established that the first applicant owned the registered trade mark INTEL, the second applicant was an authorised user, and the respondents used INTEL, alone and in Intel Financial Services, as a trade mark for financial services in a manner that infringed s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The requested restraints, business-name change order and costs order were therefore appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Infringement Proceeding / Notice of Motion for Orders in Default After Respondents Failed to Comply With a Discovery Order; Respondents Did Not Appear
Outcome
Orders made for the applicants; respondents restrained and ordered to change business name and pay costs.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Infringement' 'default Judgment' 'discovery Default' 'permanent Injunction' 'costs']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['trade Mark Infringement' 'default Judgment' 'discovery Default' 'permanent Injunction' '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 / Notice of Motion for Orders in Default After Respondents Failed to Comply With a Discovery Order; Respondents Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were in default of Court orders so that judgment or orders could be made against them under the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether the respondents' use of INTEL or Intel Financial Services in relation to financial services infringed the applicants' registered trade mark INTEL." 'Whether permanent restraint, change of business name and costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were in default of the Court's discovery orders, had been served with the notice of motion, did not appear and did not oppose the orders. The evidence established that the first applicant owned the registered trade mark INTEL, the second applicant was an authorised user, and the respondents used INTEL, alone and in Intel Financial Services, as a trade mark for financial services in a manner that infringed s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The requested restraints, business-name change order and costs order were therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

Orders made for the applicants; respondents restrained and ordered to change business name and pay costs.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent, whether by its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from advertising, promoting, selling, offering to sell, supplying or offering to supply or distributing any goods or services under or by reference to any name or mark which incorporates the word INTEL or any other name...