Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 112

Campaigntrack Pty Ltd v Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 112

The represented respondents, having been put on clear notice by correspondence from 29 September 2016 of alleged improper access, code duplication, and the risk that their software development activities infringed the appellant's copyright, failed to take or ensure adequate reasonable steps to investigate or prevent continued reproduction or use of the DreamDesk works in the developing and running Toolbox system. Their continued operation and indifference constituted implied authorisation under copyright law and thus infringement for the relevant period. The contract claims against the fourth and fifth respondents did not succeed as there was no error in the primary judge's reasoning or...

Parties
Appellant: Campaigntrack Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Biggin & Scott Corporate Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: David Semmens; Fourth Respondent: Dreamdesk Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Jonathan Michael Meissner; Sixth Respondent: Paul Geoffrey Stoner; Seventh Respondent: Michelle Bartels
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Authorisation of Copyright Infringement, Contract Breach, Source Code Copying, Undertakings and Injunctions
Intellectual Property Copyright Infringement Authorisation of Copyright Infringement Contract Breach Source Code Copying Undertakings and Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Campaigntrack Pty Ltd

Appellant

Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Biggin & Scott Corporate Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

David Semmens

Third Respondent

Dreamdesk Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Jonathan Michael Meissner

Fifth Respondent

Paul Geoffrey Stoner

Sixth Respondent

Michelle Bartels

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether represented respondents authorised copyright infringement in the DreamDesk works via use and development of the Toolbox system between 29 September 2016 and June 2018
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge failed to have regard to material evidence from 29 September 2016 onwards regarding knowledge or indifference to copyright infringement
  3. 3 Whether the contract claims against the fourth and fifth respondents (DreamDesk Pty Ltd and Mr Meissner) should have succeeded

Ratio Decidendi

The represented respondents, having been put on clear notice by correspondence from 29 September 2016 of alleged improper access, code duplication, and the risk that their software development activities infringed the appellant's copyright, failed to take or ensure adequate reasonable steps to investigate or prevent continued reproduction or use of the DreamDesk works in the developing and running Toolbox system. Their continued operation and indifference constituted implied authorisation under copyright law and thus infringement for the relevant period. The contract claims against the fourth and fifth respondents did not succeed as there was no error in the primary judge's reasoning or...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Orders 6 and 8 made on 31 August 2021 set aside.
  • Declarations of copyright infringement against first, second, sixth and seventh respondents between 29 September 2016 and June 2018 for authorisation of reproductions of DreamDesk Source Code Works and Database and Table Works in developing and using Toolbox.