Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Knierum [2004] FCA 1584

Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Knierum [2004] FCA 1584

The orders disposing of the case against the first respondent had already been made in open court and the applicant's cause of action had merged in those orders. The court would not recall them except to make one drafting amendment, because a permanent injunction should not be granted without evidence of a real risk of future infringement, and no such evidence existed; the first respondent was unrepresented, the consequences of breach would risk an additional penalty, and the parties' agreement to an injunction did not justify making inappropriate discretionary relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Infringement Action / Application/request to Recall Orders Before Entry After Out of Court Settlement and Consent Orders
Outcome
Orders not recalled except for one amendment to the wording of the injunction; application/request otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
['trade Mark Infringement' 'permanent Injunctions' 'threat of Repetition' 'consent Orders' 'recall of Orders Before Entry' 'importation of Infringing Goods']
['trade Marks' 'intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['trade Mark Infringement' 'permanent Injunctions' 'threat of Repetition' 'consent Orders' 'recall of Orders Before Entry' 'importation of Infringing Goods']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Infringement Action / Application/request to Recall Orders Before Entry After Out of Court Settlement and Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders disposing of the case against the first respondent should be recalled before entry' 'Whether a permanent injunction should be granted for trade mark infringement where there is no evidence of likely repetition' "Whether the parties' agreement to permanent injunctions required the court to make those orders" 'Whether the proposed injunction should be varied to use the statutory expression "goods of the same description as the Louis Vuitton Registered Goods"']

Ratio Decidendi

The orders disposing of the case against the first respondent had already been made in open court and the applicant's cause of action had merged in those orders. The court would not recall them except to make one drafting amendment, because a permanent injunction should not be granted without evidence of a real risk of future infringement, and no such evidence existed; the first respondent was unrepresented, the consequences of breach would risk an additional penalty, and the parties' agreement to an injunction did not justify making inappropriate discretionary relief.

Court Disposition

Orders not recalled except for one amendment to the wording of the injunction; application/request otherwise refused.

Orders

  • ['The order was to be modified to introduce the original statutory language restraining use on goods of the same description as the Louis Vuitton Registered Goods.' 'Save for that amendment, the court refused to recall its orders.']