In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772

The respondents' application for a stay of injunctions, delivery-up and destruction orders, and ancillary orders is refused as the evidence does not establish any substantial hardship or risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; the costs and inconvenience claimed by the respondents are exaggerated and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Remedies and Stay Application
Outcome
Respondents' application for a stay of orders dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Infringement' 'passing Off' 'australian Consumer Law (acl)' 'remedies' 'stay of Orders']
['intellectual Property' 'consumer Law'] ['trade Mark Infringement' 'passing Off' 'australian Consumer Law (acl)' 'remedies' 'stay of Orders']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil / Post Trial Remedies and Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate form of injunctions following findings of trade mark infringement, ACL contraventions, and passing off' 'Application for stay of injunctions, delivery-up/destruction orders, and costs' 'Assessment of whether grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable' 'Whether appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay' 'Whether balance of convenience favours prospective appellants']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' application for a stay of injunctions, delivery-up and destruction orders, and ancillary orders is refused as the evidence does not establish any substantial hardship or risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; the costs and inconvenience claimed by the respondents are exaggerated and unsubstantiated; the balance of convenience favours the applicant, who would suffer unquantifiable loss if a stay were granted and the appeal fails; ancillary orders are prudent given the respondents' past conduct; separate injunctions for each cause of action are appropriate.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for a stay of orders dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Injunctions restraining trade mark infringement, ACL contraventions, and passing off against respondents, effective in 60 days.' 'Respondents to amend/cancel social media accounts, domain name, and business name registrations using infringing marks within 60 days, verified by affidavit.' 'Respondents to deliver up...