GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 638

GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 638

An injunction is appropriate as the respondent's XTRAK products are substantially similar in overall impression to the applicant's registered design, with threatened infringement established by the respondent’s display of the products online; given the respondent’s cooperation and the absence of any sale of the products in Australia, a delivery up and takedown order is unnecessary. The respondent is liable for the applicant's costs on a party-party basis, as it was reasonable for the applicant to commence proceedings when it did.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement / Determination of Final Orders and Costs Following Earlier Judgment
Outcome
Final orders made granting injunction and costs; claim otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
['registered Designs' 'injunctions' 'threatened Infringement' 'costs']
['intellectual Property'] ['registered Designs' 'injunctions' 'threatened Infringement' 'costs']

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 Infringement / Determination of Final Orders and Costs Following Earlier Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether delivery up and takedown orders should be made' "Whether the respondent should pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application for short service and the interlocutory relief"]

Ratio Decidendi

An injunction is appropriate as the respondent's XTRAK products are substantially similar in overall impression to the applicant's registered design, with threatened infringement established by the respondent’s display of the products online; given the respondent’s cooperation and the absence of any sale of the products in Australia, a delivery up and takedown order is unnecessary. The respondent is liable for the applicant's costs on a party-party basis, as it was reasonable for the applicant to commence proceedings when it did.

Court Disposition

Final orders made granting injunction and costs; claim otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • ["Declaration that the respondent's XTRAK products embody a design substantially similar in overall impression to Registered Design No 201613671." 'Declaration that by displaying the XTRAK products in Australia the respondent has threatened to infringe the GME Design pursuant to section 71 of the Designs Act 2003...