Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1895

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1895

The documents purporting to be invoices were rejected as evidence under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because their probative value was very low and substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading evidence, and undue waste of time, particularly given their late introduction, equivocal content, lack of explanation, and age.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Evidence / Evidentiary Motion During Hearing
Outcome
Tender of 19 documents purporting to be invoices rejected as evidence.
Legal Topics
['trade Marks' 'evidentiary Rulings']
['intellectual Property'] ['trade Marks' 'evidentiary Rulings']

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

Ruling on Evidence / Evidentiary Motion During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Admissibility of documents purporting to be invoices as evidence of trade mark use']

Ratio Decidendi

The documents purporting to be invoices were rejected as evidence under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because their probative value was very low and substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading evidence, and undue waste of time, particularly given their late introduction, equivocal content, lack of explanation, and age.

Court Disposition

Tender of 19 documents purporting to be invoices rejected as evidence.

Orders

  • ['The Court makes the ruling in paragraph 8 of the reasons published as Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1895.']