Chanel Limited v Kim [2007] FCA 2076

Chanel Limited v Kim [2007] FCA 2076

Section 137(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) does not preclude the Court from making an order restraining the Customs CEO from releasing seized goods, even after expiration of the 20 working day period. The Court retains the power to make such an order, and such relief is appropriate in this case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Infringement Action / Application for Order Restraining Release of Seized Goods
Outcome
Order made restraining release of seized goods until further order.
Legal Topics
['seizure of Infringing Goods' 'statutory Construction' 'release of Seized Goods' 'trade Mark Infringement']

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

Infringement Action / Application for Order Restraining Release of Seized Goods

  1. 1 ['Whether the court can make an order restraining release of seized goods after the 20 working day period under section 137(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) has expired.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 137(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) does not preclude the Court from making an order restraining the Customs CEO from releasing seized goods, even after expiration of the 20 working day period. The Court retains the power to make such an order, and such relief is appropriate in this case.

Court Disposition

Order made restraining release of seized goods until further order.

Orders

  • ["The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Services is restrained, until further order, from releasing the consignment of 100 scarves, bearing the CHANEL mark and/or Chanel Crossed C's Device, seized pursuant to s 133 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) on 19 September 2007 (reference 200708541)." 'A...