Liberation Developments Pty Ltd v Lomax Group Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 721

Liberation Developments Pty Ltd v Lomax Group Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 721

Although a prima facie case of patent and trademark infringement was established, the applicants failed to show that damages would be an inadequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, so the interlocutory injunctions were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Liberation Developments Pty Ltd; Applicant: Titan Hoarding Systems Australia Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lomax Group Pty Ltd; Respondent: Hoarding Ideas Pty Ltd; Respondent: Maria Lomax; Respondent: Mark Lomax
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Adequacy of Damages
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Trademark Infringement Copyright Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Balance of Convenience Adequacy of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liberation Developments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Titan Hoarding Systems Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lomax Group Pty Ltd

Respondent

Hoarding Ideas Pty Ltd

Respondent

Maria Lomax

Respondent

Mark Lomax

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted for alleged patent and trademark infringement
  2. 2 Whether damages are an adequate remedy
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the interlocutory injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

Although a prima facie case of patent and trademark infringement was established, the applicants failed to show that damages would be an inadequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, so the interlocutory injunctions were refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicants' claim for interlocutory relief is dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved.