Mircosoft Corp v Compustar Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1648

Mircosoft Corp v Compustar Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1648

On the uncontradicted evidence, the first respondent reproduced Microsoft programs without leave or licence, infringed copyright subsisting in the first applicant, supplied an infringing copy of "Microsoft Works", infringed the applicants' trade marks, and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The second respondent was liable because, as director, secretary and sole shareholder, she had power to prevent the infringement and did not do so, and the evidence supported the inference that she participated in, directed, procured or authorised the unlawful conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Alleging Copyright Infringement, Trade Mark Infringement, and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Final Hearing; Respondents Did Not Appear; Liability and Quantum Ordered to Be Heard Separately
Outcome
The applicants succeeded against both respondents; costs were awarded to the applicants and quantum was to be heard separately.
Legal Topics
['unauthorised Reproduction of Computer Programs' 'authorisation of Copyright Infringement by Company Director' 'joint Tortfeasor Liability' 'supply of Infringing Copy' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['copyright' 'trade Marks' 'consumer Law'] ['unauthorised Reproduction of Computer Programs' 'authorisation of Copyright Infringement by Company Director' 'joint Tortfeasor Liability' 'supply of Infringing Copy' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']

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

Application Alleging Copyright Infringement, Trade Mark Infringement, and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Final Hearing; Respondents Did Not Appear; Liability and Quantum Ordered to Be Heard Separately

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent reproduced Microsoft programs without leave or licence and thereby infringed copyright subsisting in the first applicant.' "Whether the second respondent was liable for the first respondent's copyright infringement by authorisation and as a joint tortfeasor." 'Whether the first respondent infringed copyright by supplying a copy of the program "Microsoft Works" under s 38 of the Copyright Act 1968.' 'Whether the respondents infringed the applicants\' trade marks, particularly the trade mark "MICROSOFT".' 'Whether both respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the uncontradicted evidence, the first respondent reproduced Microsoft programs without leave or licence, infringed copyright subsisting in the first applicant, supplied an infringing copy of "Microsoft Works", infringed the applicants' trade marks, and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The second respondent was liable because, as director, secretary and sole shareholder, she had power to prevent the infringement and did not do so, and the evidence supported the inference that she participated in, directed, procured or authorised the unlawful conduct.

Court Disposition

The applicants succeeded against both respondents; costs were awarded to the applicants and quantum was to be heard separately.

Orders

  • ['Evidence in N 244 of 1999 was to be evidence in this matter to the extent relevant.' 'Issues of liability and quantum were to be heard separately.' "The respondents should pay the applicants' costs up to and including 17 November 2000." 'The applicants were granted leave to tax such costs forthwith.']