Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd v Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 191

Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd v Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 191

Both respondents jointly participated in the appeal, did not differentiate their positions, and ground 5 concerned both, thus the costs order should be against both respondents.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: KFT Investments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Respondents to pay 50% of the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Costs
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd

Appellant

Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd

First Respondent

KFT Investments Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the appeal should be borne by both respondents or only the first respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Both respondents jointly participated in the appeal, did not differentiate their positions, and ground 5 concerned both, thus the costs order should be against both respondents.

Court Disposition

Respondents to pay 50% of the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • The respondents pay 50% of the appellant's costs of the appeal.