Gerard Industries Pty Ltd v Auswide Import Export Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 41

Gerard Industries Pty Ltd v Auswide Import Export Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 41

The Hercules cover plate is not an obvious imitation of the applicant’s registered Design due to observable differences, particularly the soft chamfered ends and changes underneath, but it is a fraudulent imitation because those differences were made merely to disguise the copying of the applicant’s Design; the respondent’s conduct constitutes infringement and the respondent’s design registration must be expunged for lack of novelty or originality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Design Infringement and Expungement Proceedings / Post Liability Judgment; Orders to Be Determined
Outcome
Liability found for applicant; order to relist for hearing on final orders and remedies.
Legal Topics
['design Infringement' 'fraudulent Imitation' 'obvious Imitation' 'registered Designs' 'expungement of Design Registration' 'scope of Protection' 'prior Art Comparison']

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

Design Infringement and Expungement Proceedings / Post Liability Judgment; Orders to Be Determined

  1. 1 ['Whether the Hercules cover plate is an obvious imitation of the registered Design' 'Whether the Hercules cover plate is a fraudulent imitation of the registered Design' 'Whether the importation and sale of the Hercules cover plate infringed the applicant’s registered design' 'Whether registered design No. 126467 should be expunged for lack of novelty or originality']

Ratio Decidendi

The Hercules cover plate is not an obvious imitation of the applicant’s registered Design due to observable differences, particularly the soft chamfered ends and changes underneath, but it is a fraudulent imitation because those differences were made merely to disguise the copying of the applicant’s Design; the respondent’s conduct constitutes infringement and the respondent’s design registration must be expunged for lack of novelty or originality.

Court Disposition

Liability found for applicant; order to relist for hearing on final orders and remedies.

Orders

  • ['The matter be relisted to hear the parties as to the orders which should be made in light of the reasons for judgment delivered this day.']