Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 120

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 120

The proceeding should be remitted to the primary judge for the determination of the respondent's interlocutory application in accordance with the appeal court's reasons, and the appellants should recover their costs of the appeal and notice of contention except for the costs relating to a discrete interlocutory application to adduce new evidence, which should be paid by the appellants to the respondent. All questions of costs at first instance in respect of the respondent's interlocutory application are to be determined by the primary judge.

Parties
First Appellant: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport; Second Appellant: Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO); Respondent: Spirits International B.V.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and on Form of Remitter and Costs
Outcome
Proceeding remitted to primary judge; costs orders specified.
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Trade Marks, Costs, Interlocutory Application, Permanent Stay
Intellectual Property Practice and Procedure Trade Marks Costs Interlocutory Application Permanent Stay

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport

First Appellant

Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO)

Second Appellant

Spirits International B.V.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and on Form of Remitter and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate form of orders to remit to primary judge following appeal
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs: whether apportionment warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding should be remitted to the primary judge for the determination of the respondent's interlocutory application in accordance with the appeal court's reasons, and the appellants should recover their costs of the appeal and notice of contention except for the costs relating to a discrete interlocutory application to adduce new evidence, which should be paid by the appellants to the respondent. All questions of costs at first instance in respect of the respondent's interlocutory application are to be determined by the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Proceeding remitted to primary judge; costs orders specified.

Orders

  • The proceeding be remitted to the primary judge for determination of the respondent's interlocutory application dated 7 December 2018 in accordance with the Court's reasons of 21 May 2021.
  • The appellants' interlocutory application dated 27 April 2020 be dismissed with the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of that application.