Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. [2014] FCA 1075

Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. [2014] FCA 1075

Leave to appeal should not be granted at this stage as to do so would be premature, given that the Federal Circuit Court has yet to determine outstanding claims for further injunctive relief and the applicant will have further opportunities to advance his arguments regarding the impact of the orders, including their alleged extra-territorial effect.

Parties
First Applicant: James William Christian; Second Applicant: Mark Charles Christian; First Respondent: Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A.; Second Respondent: Nestlé Australia Ltd ACN 000 011 316
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal and interlocutory relief stood over for further hearing after Federal Circuit Court judgment on outstanding injunctive relief.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Interlocutory Appeals, Injunctive Relief, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction, Evidence
Intellectual Property Practice and Procedure Trade Marks Interlocutory Appeals Injunctive Relief Stay of Execution Jurisdiction Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James William Christian

First Applicant

Mark Charles Christian

Second Applicant

Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A.

First Respondent

Nestlé Australia Ltd ACN 000 011 316

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders relating to trade mark infringement and injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the orders made by the primary judge improperly extend beyond the Australian jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether findings of fact regarding use of the first A-SASHI logo were unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal should not be granted at this stage as to do so would be premature, given that the Federal Circuit Court has yet to determine outstanding claims for further injunctive relief and the applicant will have further opportunities to advance his arguments regarding the impact of the orders, including their alleged extra-territorial effect.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal and interlocutory relief stood over for further hearing after Federal Circuit Court judgment on outstanding injunctive relief.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for leave to appeal and the interlocutory application dated 16 September 2014 stand over for further hearing at a date and time to be appointed following the giving of judgment in SYD3214/2013 in relation to the respondents' claim for further injunctive relief to be heard by the Federal...
  • Within 48 hours of the Federal Circuit Court judgment referred to in Order 1 being given, the parties are to approach the Associate to Yates J to have the application for leave to appeal and the interlocutory application listed for further hearing.