Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 2) [2009] FCA 256

Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No 2) [2009] FCA 256

The respondents have no reasonable prospects of defending the trade mark infringement claim against registered trade mark no. 785466, as the marks used are substantially identical or deceptively similar and the registration was valid and protected during the relevant period; summary judgment is granted only on this claim, while factual disputes preclude summary judgment on copyright, passing off, and statutory causes of action.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc.; First Respondent: Leah Jane Farley; Second Respondent: Dusia Pty Ltd ACN 119 500 186; Third Respondent: Leonid Mykhalovsky; Fourth Respondent/second Cross Claimant: Hepbourne Pty Ltd ACN 080 453 247; Fifth Respondent/first Cross Claimant: Vladimir Vaysman; Sixth Respondent/third Cross Claimant: Josef Vaysman; Seventh Respondent/fourth Cross Claimant: Polina Vaysman; Eighth Respondent: Millhouse Pty Ltd ACN 111 765 505; Ninth Respondent: Dianne Sommer; Tenth Respondent: Sandy Hazendonk; Eleventh Respondent: HGU Pty Ltd ACN 121 922 754; Twelfth Respondent: Fedia Pty Ltd ACN 119 500 444; Thirteenth Respondent: Taskinc Pty Ltd ACN 121 919 926; Fourteenth Respondent: OTK International Pty Ltd ACN 119 498 001; Fifteenth Respondent: Gihan Ezzat; Sixteenth Respondent: Joanne Strickland; Seventeenth Respondent: Vernon Pty Ltd ACN 123 047 138; Eighteenth Respondent: Rastov Pty Ltd ACN 119 498 547; Nineteenth Respondent: Victoria Vaysman; Twentieth Respondent: Oliver Doederlein; Twenty First Respondent: Margarit Pedrotti; Twenty Second Respondent: Samba Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 111 968 935
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Under S 31 a Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part: trade mark infringement claim succeeded; other claims dismissed for purposes of summary judgment.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Passing Off, Fair Trading Act 1999 (vic), Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth), Summary Judgment, Deceptively Similar Marks, Rectification of Register, Pro Bono Representation
Intellectual Property Practice and Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Copyright Infringement Passing Off Fair Trading Act 1999 (vic) Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Summary Judgment +3 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 6 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc.

Applicant/cross Respondent

Leah Jane Farley

First Respondent

Dusia Pty Ltd ACN 119 500 186

Second Respondent

Leonid Mykhalovsky

Third Respondent

Hepbourne Pty Ltd ACN 080 453 247

Fourth Respondent/second Cross Claimant

Vladimir Vaysman

Fifth Respondent/first Cross Claimant

Josef Vaysman

Sixth Respondent/third Cross Claimant

Polina Vaysman

Seventh Respondent/fourth Cross Claimant

Millhouse Pty Ltd ACN 111 765 505

Eighth Respondent

Dianne Sommer

Ninth Respondent

Sandy Hazendonk

Tenth Respondent

HGU Pty Ltd ACN 121 922 754

Eleventh Respondent

Fedia Pty Ltd ACN 119 500 444

Twelfth Respondent

Taskinc Pty Ltd ACN 121 919 926

Thirteenth Respondent

OTK International Pty Ltd ACN 119 498 001

Fourteenth Respondent

Gihan Ezzat

Fifteenth Respondent

Joanne Strickland

Sixteenth Respondent

Vernon Pty Ltd ACN 123 047 138

Seventeenth Respondent

Rastov Pty Ltd ACN 119 498 547

Eighteenth Respondent

Victoria Vaysman

Nineteenth Respondent

Oliver Doederlein

Twentieth Respondent

Margarit Pedrotti

Twenty First Respondent

Samba Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 111 968 935

Twenty Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Under S 31 a Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defences to trade mark infringement have reasonable prospects of success under s 31A of Federal Court of Australia Act
  2. 2 Whether marks used by respondents are deceptively similar to applicant's registered mark
  3. 3 Whether cancellation of a registered trade mark operates retrospectively under s 88 Trade Marks Act

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents have no reasonable prospects of defending the trade mark infringement claim against registered trade mark no. 785466, as the marks used are substantially identical or deceptively similar and the registration was valid and protected during the relevant period; summary judgment is granted only on this claim, while factual disputes preclude summary judgment on copyright, passing off, and statutory causes of action.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part: trade mark infringement claim succeeded; other claims dismissed for purposes of summary judgment.

Orders

  • Paragraph 48 of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Respondents' defence struck out.
  • Paragraph 49 of Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Respondents' defence struck out.