Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34

Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34

The appeals are allowed because the primary judge erred in admitting and relying on email evidence against all respondents at the stage of final submissions, and in treating such evidence as truth of contents for liability in infringement by dealing without compliance with the Evidence Act. Without this evidence, essential findings of joint knowledge and authorisation, as required for infringement under s 38 Copyright Act, were not sustained. The proven direct infringements were limited to two specific compliance plates, and possibilities of market loss or damages beyond nominal are speculative on the evidence presented. Retroactive licensing did not entitle group companies other than the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders set aside; matters remitted for determination of trade mark infringement; parties to file draft orders.
Legal Topics
['copyright Infringement' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'damages' 'joint Tortfeasance' 'procedural Fairness' 'trade Mark Infringement']
['intellectual Property' 'evidence' 'remedies'] ['copyright Infringement' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'damages' 'joint Tortfeasance' 'procedural Fairness' '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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants infringed copyright in gaming machine software, artwork or compliance plates' 'Whether inferences of infringement could be made from circumstantial evidence' 'Whether the primary judge erred in admitting and using email evidence against all respondents' 'Whether damages and additional damages were properly awarded' 'Whether joint liability and authorisation for infringement by dealing was established' 'Whether retroactive licensing confers entitlement to damages on group companies']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are allowed because the primary judge erred in admitting and relying on email evidence against all respondents at the stage of final submissions, and in treating such evidence as truth of contents for liability in infringement by dealing without compliance with the Evidence Act. Without this evidence, essential findings of joint knowledge and authorisation, as required for infringement under s 38 Copyright Act, were not sustained. The proven direct infringements were limited to two specific compliance plates, and possibilities of market loss or damages beyond nominal are speculative on the evidence presented. Retroactive licensing did not entitle group companies other than the...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders set aside; matters remitted for determination of trade mark infringement; parties to file draft orders.

Orders

  • ['Orders made on 15 December 2009 are set aside.' 'Each matter is remitted to the primary judge for determination of claims of trade mark infringement.' 'The parties are to confer and within seven days file draft orders (including as to costs) or, if not agreed, to file and serve proposed orders and submissions.']