Mainbridge Industries Pty Ltd & Anor v. Whitewood, G. & Anor [1985] FCA 596

Mainbridge Industries Pty Ltd & Anor v. Whitewood, G. & Anor [1985] FCA 596

On a visual comparison of the appellants' drawings, including the writing and figures on them, with the respondents' machine, there was not a sufficient degree of objective similarity to support a finding that the respondents' machine reproduced the appellants' drawings or a substantial part of them. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the respondents actually copied the drawings or whether s. 71 of the Copyright Act 1968 applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Copyright Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['reproduction of Artistic Work in Three Dimensional Form' 'objective Similarity' 'substantial Part' 'visual Comparison' 'explanatory Notes on Drawings' 'section 71 Defence' 'secondary Infringement Knowledge']
['copyright Law'] ['reproduction of Artistic Work in Three Dimensional Form' 'objective Similarity' 'substantial Part' 'visual Comparison' 'explanatory Notes on Drawings' 'section 71 Defence' 'secondary Infringement Knowledge']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Copyright Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Whitewood infringed the appellants' copyright in drawings by reproducing a substantial part of them in material form." "Whether, if the making of Mainbridge's money machine infringed copyright, F.M. Ibbett Pty. Limited had the requisite knowledge under s. 38 of the Copyright Act 1968." 'Whether, if F.M. Ibbett Pty. Limited did not have the requisite knowledge under s. 38, the appellants were nevertheless entitled to quia timet relief.' 'Whether the respondents could rely on s. 71 of the Copyright Act 1968.' 'Whether the Court could have regard to writing and figures on the drawings when comparing the drawings with the allegedly infringing machine.']

Ratio Decidendi

On a visual comparison of the appellants' drawings, including the writing and figures on them, with the respondents' machine, there was not a sufficient degree of objective similarity to support a finding that the respondents' machine reproduced the appellants' drawings or a substantial part of them. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the respondents actually copied the drawings or whether s. 71 of the Copyright Act 1968 applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellants Mainbridge Industries Pty. Limited and Francis George Sykes pay the respondents Gordon Whitewood and F.M. Ibbett Pty. Limited their costs of the proceedings.']