Unilever Aust Ltd v RFC Nominees Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1838

Unilever Aust Ltd v RFC Nominees Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1838

The Court refused to vacate the December hearing dates for Mr Karounos because, despite his direct joinder only in June 2000, he had been closely involved throughout the two-year proceedings as successor trustee and appointor of the trust, had access to material available to RFC Nominees, and had been involved in instructing RFC Nominees' representatives. Limited further discovery had been ordered and provided, the issue of registrability of "real" was likely to turn largely on law, and prompt resolution was desirable. RFC Nominees' cross-claim was deferred because its manager needed reasonable time to decide whether to participate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Trade Mark Validity and Infringement Proceedings With Cross Claims / Ex Tempore Reasons Concerning Refusal to Vacate December 2000 Hearing Dates and Adjournment of Proceedings
Outcome
Application to vacate the December hearing dates refused; proceedings adjourned to 19 February 2001; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Registrability' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'discovery' 'adjournment' 'cross Claims']
['trade Marks' 'civil Procedure'] ['trade Mark Registrability' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'discovery' 'adjournment' 'cross Claims']

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

Federal Court Trade Mark Validity and Infringement Proceedings With Cross Claims / Ex Tempore Reasons Concerning Refusal to Vacate December 2000 Hearing Dates and Adjournment of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the December hearing dates should be vacated or adjourned on the basis of alleged discovery problems and insufficient time for George Karounos and experts to consider material.' 'Whether the proceedings should continue in light of RFC Nominees Pty Limited being restored to the register and placed into management.' 'How the hearing should proceed after George Karounos did not appear.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to vacate the December hearing dates for Mr Karounos because, despite his direct joinder only in June 2000, he had been closely involved throughout the two-year proceedings as successor trustee and appointor of the trust, had access to material available to RFC Nominees, and had been involved in instructing RFC Nominees' representatives. Limited further discovery had been ordered and provided, the issue of registrability of "real" was likely to turn largely on law, and prompt resolution was desirable. RFC Nominees' cross-claim was deferred because its manager needed reasonable time to decide whether to participate.

Court Disposition

Application to vacate the December hearing dates refused; proceedings adjourned to 19 February 2001; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["RFC Nominees Pty Ltd's cross-claim was not to proceed in December and was set down for hearing for four days commencing 19 February 2001, assuming the administrator decided to proceed with it." 'The proceedings were adjourned until 19 February 2001.' 'The question of costs was reserved.']