Courier Pete Pty Ltd v Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 735
Collymore authored the designs and was never employed to design tanks for Metroll, did not in fact design tanks during his employment, and did not create design 310528 or designs 312217 and 312218 pursuant to a sufficient direction or instruction from Metroll. In any event, before the prototype modular tanks were constructed, Collymore asserted ownership and communicated that he would make them only on the basis that he remained owner of the modular designs; Metroll's conduct supported an inferred agreement that he would retain ownership. Accordingly, Courier Pete Pty Ltd, by assignment from Collymore, was an entitled person for designs 312217 and 312218, and Metroll was not an entitled...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Decision of the Deputy Registrar of Designs / Federal Court Appeal Under S 52(7) of the Designs Act 2003 (cth)
- Outcome
- The appeal by Courier Pete Pty Ltd was allowed, the revocation of designs 312217 and 312218 was set aside and those designs were restored to the Register. The cross appeal by Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd was dismissed, the Deputy Registrar's decision that Metroll was not an entitled person for design 310528 was...
- Legal Topics
- ['entitlement to Registered Designs' 'designs Created in the Course of Employment or Under a Contract' 'revocation of Registered Designs' 'assignment of Designs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Decision of the Deputy Registrar of Designs / Federal Court Appeal Under S 52(7) of the Designs Act 2003 (cth)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Mark Nicholas Collymore was an entitled person under s 13(1) of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) with respect to design 310528.' 'Whether designs 312217 and 312218 were created by Mark Nicholas Collymore in the course of employment, or under a contract, with Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd.' 'Whether Courier Pete Pty Ltd, as assignee of Mark Nicholas Collymore, was an entitled person when designs 312217 and 312218 were first registered.' 'Whether Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd was an entitled person when design 310528 was first registered.']
Ratio Decidendi
Collymore authored the designs and was never employed to design tanks for Metroll, did not in fact design tanks during his employment, and did not create design 310528 or designs 312217 and 312218 pursuant to a sufficient direction or instruction from Metroll. In any event, before the prototype modular tanks were constructed, Collymore asserted ownership and communicated that he would make them only on the basis that he remained owner of the modular designs; Metroll's conduct supported an inferred agreement that he would retain ownership. Accordingly, Courier Pete Pty Ltd, by assignment from Collymore, was an entitled person for designs 312217 and 312218, and Metroll was not an entitled...
Court Disposition
The appeal by Courier Pete Pty Ltd was allowed, the revocation of designs 312217 and 312218 was set aside and those designs were restored to the Register. The cross appeal by Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd was dismissed, the Deputy Registrar's decision that Metroll was not an entitled person for design 310528 was...
Orders
- ['Courier Pete Pty Ltd (by assignment from Collymore) was an entitled person at the time that Designs 312217 and 312218 were first registered.' 'The appeal by Courier Pete Pty Ltd be allowed.' 'The decision of the Deputy Registrar of Designs of 1 December 2008 to revoke Designs 312217 and 312218 be set aside.'...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment