Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | M | Mondaq Business Briefing

Intellectual Property News.

Article Excerpt
Copyright : Australia

Metricon Loses Full Federal Court Architectural Infringement Appeal

The Full Federal Court has dismissed an appeal by Metricon Homes Pty Ltd ('Metricon') against a first instance finding that Metricon had infringed the copyright of Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd ('Barrett') by reproducing a substantial part of Barrett's 'Seattle' plan without license or authorisation, and furthermore, that this infringement had been authorised by Metricon's Managing Director and Product Development Manager. On appeal, Metricon argued that the trial judge had erred in concluding that Metricon had reproduced a 'substantial part' of the Seattle plan. This argument was rejected. Following the trial judgment in Barrett Property Group Ltd v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd [2008] (as reported in our 21 April edition), the Full Court's finding of substantiality was derived from the significant amounts of labour, skill and judgment involved in the development of the Seattle plan, and moreover from the degree of originality subsisting in the 'al fresco quadrant' which was reproduced. The Court also upheld the trial judges finding of authorisation with regards to Metricon's senior managers.

Click here to access the case.

Federal Court Dismisses Claims Of Copyright Infringement Against Cotton On The Federal Court has dismissed claims of copyright infringement brought by Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd ('Elwood') against Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd ('Cotton On') for the designs of a t-shirt and swing tag. Elwood alleged that Cotton On had copied its designs for the 'New Deal' t-shirt and the 'Vintage Sport Swing Tag', and thus had infringed its copyright in these designs. Although Cotton On had admitted to using the Elwood design drawings as a reference in creating its own designs, it was left to the Court to decide whether copyright subsisted in Elwood's designs and, if so, whether this protection had been infringed. Gordon J held that the designs were 'drawings' for copyright purposes, and that they possessed the requisite degree of originality, however ultimately decided that Cotton On had not copied a 'substantial part' of the designs but merely the general underlying 'idea'. A cross-claim by Cotton On, alleging the making of...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!