Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Quality Kebab Wholesalers Pty Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 840
The orders of 13 June 2014 were interlocutory as not all issues including the form of corrective advertising had been resolved; the Court retained power under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.05(c) to entertain the variation application, but there was no basis to vary the orders as s 126(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) was procedural and applied to the proceedings; the corrective advertisement should reflect the actual finding of misleading and deceptive conduct, not trade mark infringement.
- Parties
- Applicant: Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited ACN 068 275 203; First Respondent: Quality Kebabs Wholesalers Pty Limited ACN 096 787 174; Second Respondent: Yasar Kose; Third Respondent: White Heaven Pty Limited ACN 151 079 999; Fourth Respondent: Kadirhan Illgun
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 August 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application Concerning Variation of Orders and Corrective Advertising
- Outcome
- Application to vary orders dismissed; corrective advertising ordered in specified newspapers; costs for variation application awarded to applicant
- Legal Topics
- Final Versus Interlocutory Orders, Corrective Advertising, Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Additional Damages Under Trade Marks Act, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited ACN 068 275 203
Applicant
Quality Kebabs Wholesalers Pty Limited ACN 096 787 174
First Respondent
Yasar Kose
Second Respondent
White Heaven Pty Limited ACN 151 079 999
Third Respondent
Kadirhan Illgun
Fourth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application Concerning Variation of Orders and Corrective Advertising
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether orders of 13 June 2014 were interlocutory or final
- 2 Whether additional damages could be awarded under s 126(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) retrospectively
- 3 Form and publication of corrective advertising
Ratio Decidendi
The orders of 13 June 2014 were interlocutory as not all issues including the form of corrective advertising had been resolved; the Court retained power under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.05(c) to entertain the variation application, but there was no basis to vary the orders as s 126(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) was procedural and applied to the proceedings; the corrective advertisement should reflect the actual finding of misleading and deceptive conduct, not trade mark infringement.
Court Disposition
Application to vary orders dismissed; corrective advertising ordered in specified newspapers; costs for variation application awarded to applicant
Orders
- The application be dismissed.
- The first respondent to publish the specified corrective advertisement in Zaman Avustralya and Al Wasat, on page 5, at least 10 cm wide and 5 cm high.
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