International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited (No 2) [2011] FCA 540

International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited (No 2) [2011] FCA 540

A stay of order 2(b) should be granted because the applicant demonstrated reasons justifying the exercise of discretion, including the potential impact on intellectual property rights outside Australia, balance of convenience favoured the stay, and the appeal was arguable, in a finely balanced and developing area of law.

Parties
Applicant: International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd ACN 057 921 945; First Respondent: International Hair Cosmetics Limited; Second Respondent: Australian Salon Professional Pty Ltd ACN 143 609 994 (formerly known as Affinage Salon Professional Pty Ltd); Third Respondent: Wayne Francis Wood; Fourth Respondent: Eric Bailey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Post Judgment, Pending Appellate Review
Outcome
Stay granted as to order 2(b) of the orders made on 8 April 2011, pending appeal or further order. Costs of the stay application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Stay of Judgment, Trade Marks
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Stay of Judgment Trade Marks

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd ACN 057 921 945

Applicant

International Hair Cosmetics Limited

First Respondent

Australian Salon Professional Pty Ltd ACN 143 609 994 (formerly known as Affinage Salon Professional Pty Ltd)

Second Respondent

Wayne Francis Wood

Third Respondent

Eric Bailey

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Post Judgment, Pending Appellate Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of order 2(b) of the orders made on 8 April 2011 should be granted pending determination of the appeal
  2. 2 Which Federal Court Rules provision governs the application for stay
  3. 3 Balance of convenience regarding impact of stay on parties' intellectual property rights

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of order 2(b) should be granted because the applicant demonstrated reasons justifying the exercise of discretion, including the potential impact on intellectual property rights outside Australia, balance of convenience favoured the stay, and the appeal was arguable, in a finely balanced and developing area of law.

Court Disposition

Stay granted as to order 2(b) of the orders made on 8 April 2011, pending appeal or further order. Costs of the stay application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Order 2(b) of the orders made on 8 April 2011 be stayed until the determination of the appeal proceeding QUD85/2011 or further order.
  • Liberty to apply reserved.