Eagle Rock Entertainment Limited v Caisley [2005] FCA 1238

Eagle Rock Entertainment Limited v Caisley [2005] FCA 1238

Because the applicants and respondent were in direct competition and a licence probably would not have been granted, a licence-fee approach was inappropriate. The proper compensatory measure was the applicants' lost sales caused by the respondent's infringing DVDs, including losses flowing from master copies made in Australia and supplied to entities in Brazil and Spain. The respondent's deliberate, deceitful and persistent conduct, including false claims of licence, undercutting, breaches of undertakings and non-compliance with discovery, justified additional damages under s 115(4).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Assessment of Damages
Outcome
The respondent was ordered to pay total damages of $365,000.00 to the applicants and to pay the applicants' costs on the application for assessment of damages.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages Under S 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'infringing Dvds' 'master Copies' 'authorisation of Copying' 'additional Damages for Flagrant Copyright Infringement']
['intellectual Property' 'copyright'] ['assessment of Damages Under S 115 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'infringing Dvds' 'master Copies' 'authorisation of Copying' 'additional Damages for Flagrant Copyright 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

Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["How compensatory damages should be assessed for the respondent's making of master copies of an unauthorised DVD in Australia and supplying them for copying and sale in Australia." 'Whether damages could be assessed for losses flowing from master copies made in Australia and supplied to overseas entities in Spain and Brazil.' 'Whether additional damages should be awarded under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) for flagrant, deliberate and serious infringement.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants and respondent were in direct competition and a licence probably would not have been granted, a licence-fee approach was inappropriate. The proper compensatory measure was the applicants' lost sales caused by the respondent's infringing DVDs, including losses flowing from master copies made in Australia and supplied to entities in Brazil and Spain. The respondent's deliberate, deceitful and persistent conduct, including false claims of licence, undercutting, breaches of undertakings and non-compliance with discovery, justified additional damages under s 115(4).

Court Disposition

The respondent was ordered to pay total damages of $365,000.00 to the applicants and to pay the applicants' costs on the application for assessment of damages.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay damages in the amount of $365,000.00 to the applicants.' "The respondent is to pay the applicants' costs on this application for assessment of damages."]