Apple Computer Inc v Computer Edge Pty Ltd - [1983] FCA 358

Re: APPLE COMPUTER INC. AND APPLE COMPUTER AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
And: COMPUTER EDGE PTY. LIMITED AND MICHAEL SUSS
And: COMPUTER EDGE PTY. LIMITED AND MICHAEL SUSS (Cross Claimants)
And: APPLE COMPUTER AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (Cross Respondents)
No. G130 of 1983
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Sale of micro-computer similar in appearance and able to operate using applicant's (Apple) computer programmes - Advertisements stating that the computer's software 'compatible with' applicant's computer programme - Whether misleading or deceptive conduct - Whether suggestion that respondents' computers manufactured, sold or advertised by or with licence of applicant question of fact - Prominent label sufficient to distinguish two products and dispel alleged connection.

Copyright - alleged copyright infringement - Whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain claim under s.32 Federal Court of Australia Act - Claim that computer programmes are "original literary works" within meaning of Act considered - Whether computer programmes protected by copyright - Respondents' micro-computers alleged to incorporate reproduction of programmes used in applicant's computer.

Trade Practices Act, 1974 ss.52, 53(c), 53(d), 55, 80.

Copyright Act, 1968 ss.37, 38, 115

Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 s.32

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 7:12:1983

ORDER

1. The application be dismissed as against the first and second respondents.

2. Applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents of the claim.

3. The cross-claim be stood over generally with liberty to restore on three days' notice.

4. Costs of the cross-claim be reserved.

JUDGE1

These are proceedings for injunctive relief pursuant to s.80 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 and pursuant to s.115 of the Copyright Act, 1968; damages and an account of profits are also sought. Contraventions of ss.52, 53(c), 53(d) and 55 of the Trade Practices Act and infringements of copyright are alleged. The proceedings arise out of the importation into and sale in, Australia by the first respondent, a Victorian company, of micro-computers under the name "Wombat". The second respondent is the managing director of the first respondent which retails computers and computer equipment. The "Wombat" computer is manufactured in Taiwan without the consent of the applicants. Put simply, the applicants claim that to the knowledge of the respondents, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the "Wombat" computer has copied their "software" (computer equipment) and "hardware" (peripheral equipment).

The first applicant, a Californian corporation, makes and sells computers under the name "Apple". The second applicant is the Australian distributor of the first applicant's computers, including the "Apple II" computer.

The primary claim under s.52 and other provisions of the Trade Practices Act

By their statement of claim, the applicants contend that, in marketing the Wombat computer, the first respondent is selling or offering for sale micro-computers which are similar in shape and have a similar keyboard to the Apple II computer and operate using Apple II programmes; that the first respondent is advertising that the Wombat computer is "compatible with programs for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Apple Computer Inc v Computer Edge Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Apple Computer Inc & anor v Computer Edge Pty Ltd & anor [1983] FCA 358
Case: [1983] FCA 358
Decision Date: 07 DECEMBER 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Apple Computer Inc brought a claim against Computer Edge Pty Ltd alleging misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The crux of the dispute was whether Computer Edge's sale of micro-computers, which were similar in appearance to Apple's computers and capable of operating Apple's software, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. Apple argued that Computer Edge's advertisements claiming the software was 'compatible with' Apple's computer programme were misleading, suggesting an endorsement or approval by Apple. The court had to determine whether this amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct and whether the fact that the computers were not manufactured, sold, or advertised by or with Apple's licence was a question of fact.

The court examined whether the advertisements by Computer Edge created a misleading impression that there was an association or approval from Apple. The court found that the advertisements did not explicitly state or imply any connection with Apple. Instead, the court emphasised that the prominent label on Computer Edge's computers sufficiently distinguished them from Apple's products, thereby dispelling any notion of an affiliation or endorsement by Apple. The court concluded that the advertisements were not misleading or deceptive as they did not suggest any connection with Apple beyond software compatibility.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed as against the first and second respondents. Apple was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents. The cross-claim was stood over generally with liberty to restore on three days' notice, and costs of the cross-claim were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed as against the first and second respondents.

2. Applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents of the claim.

3. The cross-claim be stood over generally with liberty to restore on three days' notice.

4. Costs of the cross-claim be reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.