Turbo Tek Inc. & Anor v Target Australia Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 341

Turbo Tek Inc. & Anor v Target Australia Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 341

The subsequent registration of the Hung Mei design provides a rebuttable presumption of validity but does not conclusively preclude continued enforcement of the pre-existing interlocutory injunction, nor does it negate the existence of a serious question to be tried.

Parties
Applicant: Turbo Tek Inc.; Applicant: Autopace Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Target Australia Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 January 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction / Motion on Notice Seeking Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Motion seeking discharge of interlocutory injunction refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Interlocutory Injunctions, Design Infringement
Intellectual Property Designs Law Registered Designs Interlocutory Injunctions Design 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Turbo Tek Inc.

Applicant

Autopace Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Target Australia Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction / Motion on Notice Seeking Discharge of Interlocutory Injunction Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent registration of a design alleged to be substantially identical affects the enforcement of earlier interlocutory injunction for alleged infringement under s.30 Designs Act 1906
  2. 2 Whether registration renders a design incapable of infringing another registered design
  3. 3 Whether a serious question to be tried remains after new registration

Ratio Decidendi

The subsequent registration of the Hung Mei design provides a rebuttable presumption of validity but does not conclusively preclude continued enforcement of the pre-existing interlocutory injunction, nor does it negate the existence of a serious question to be tried.

Court Disposition

Motion seeking discharge of interlocutory injunction refused with costs.

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction continues.
  • Respondent’s motion refused.