GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 520

GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 520

The XTRAK product embodied a design substantially similar in overall impression to the GME registered design. Applying the informed user standard and s 19 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), and giving more weight to similarities than differences, the Court found important similarities in the vertically symmetrical curve-sided trapezoid silhouette tapering to the base, the prominent and similarly shaped PTT button, the screen and surround, the boss and truncated rectangular pyramid grommet, and the spatial separation between upper and lower buttons. The differences, including the XTRAK's smoother housing, the GME design's step-in, differences in lower button configuration, speaker treatment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Proceeding Concerning Alleged Infringement of a Registered Design for a Microphone / Final Hearing on Infringement; Questions Concerning Pecuniary Relief to Be Heard and Determined, If Necessary, After Infringement
Outcome
GME established its case of design infringement in respect of the XTRAK product.
Legal Topics
['design Infringement' 'substantial Similarity in Overall Impression' 'prior Art Base' 'informed User' 'freedom to Innovate' 'microphone Design']
['intellectual Property' 'registered Designs'] ['design Infringement' 'substantial Similarity in Overall Impression' 'prior Art Base' 'informed User' 'freedom to Innovate' 'microphone Design']

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

Intellectual Property Proceeding Concerning Alleged Infringement of a Registered Design for a Microphone / Final Hearing on Infringement; Questions Concerning Pecuniary Relief to Be Heard and Determined, If Necessary, After Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Uniden Australia Pty Ltd's XTRAK UHF mobile radio product embodies a design that is identical to, or substantially similar in overall impression to, GME Pty Ltd's registered design No 201613671 within s 71 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth)." 'How the prior art base, functional aspects of handheld microphones, the statement of newness and distinctiveness, and the informed user standard affect the comparison between the GME design and the XTRAK product.']

Ratio Decidendi

The XTRAK product embodied a design substantially similar in overall impression to the GME registered design. Applying the informed user standard and s 19 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), and giving more weight to similarities than differences, the Court found important similarities in the vertically symmetrical curve-sided trapezoid silhouette tapering to the base, the prominent and similarly shaped PTT button, the screen and surround, the boss and truncated rectangular pyramid grommet, and the spatial separation between upper and lower buttons. The differences, including the XTRAK's smoother housing, the GME design's step-in, differences in lower button configuration, speaker treatment...

Court Disposition

GME established its case of design infringement in respect of the XTRAK product.

Orders

  • ['Within 7 days the parties confer and provide short minutes of orders to the chambers of Justice Burley giving effect to these reasons and addressing the question of costs and further conduct of the proceedings.' 'The matter be listed for a case management hearing at 9.30am on 18 May 2022.']