Atari Inc and Futuretronies Australia Pty Ltd v Fairstar Electronics Pty Ltd

[1983] FCA 2

Between: A T A K l TVC. an.?

FIJTUKETROMTCS AUSTRI\T,IA

PTY. LTD. -

(App l l can i s )

-	And:	FATRSTAR E:LECTROV?CS	PT?.
-
-	L T D .

(Respondent)

CORAM: SMITHERS J.

2 3 December 1982

111s HONOUR: I n this case t he app l i can t s s eek i n t e r locL l to ry

i n j u n c t l o n s r e s t r a ~ n l n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t from impcrtlnq

i n t o A u s t r a l i a V i d e o Computer Systems c a l l e d " V C S s " f r o n

i n f r l n g l n g t h e t r a d e m a r k "Atarl" of F u t u r e t r o n l c s

0 A u s t r a l l a P t y . Ltd. and f rom t rad inq and se l l lnq in

A u s t r a l i a V C S s which It h a s i m p o r t e d f r o m o u t s i d e

Australla and which bea r t he t r ademark i n ques t ion . I t

is no t d l spu ted t ha t t he t r ademark was s f f l x e d CO t h e

goods I n q u e s t l o n b y A i a r ~ . I n c .

The applicants allso s e e k a n i n l u n c t i o n r e s r r a ~ n i n g t h e

respondent from r e p r c s e n t m q 111 re la l - ion t o these qoo?!s

L

2 .

t h a t It h a s the r apac i ty and a b l l l c y CO provlrle a>. l

necessary equipment and s e r v l c e s f o r t h e p r o p e r a n d / o r

e f f e c t l v e m a l n t e n a n c e , s e r v l c i n g o r e p a i r .of t.he VCSs

whlch a r e 1:vportcd by i t . S e c o n d l y , t h a t t h e VCSs as

a fo resa ld . have the b e n e f l t of a capacity or a h l l l t y by

the respondent t o provide a p rope r and /o r r epa l r o f t hose

s y s t e m s . T h l r d l y , t h a t p e r s o n s who purchased t-hc s a ~ d

VCSs Imported, as aEoresa~.rl from the respon4ent between

1 5 November 1982 and 31 December 1YR2, w e r e e n t l t l e d t o

a r e c e i v e f r o m t h e s e c o n d - n a m e d applicant t h r e e v i d e o

ca t r ldges wor th about $100.00.

The o u t l i n e of the f a c t u a l s 1 t u a t l o : l 1 s t h a t t h e

a p p i l c a n t A t a r I n c . 1s an American Company and i s t h e

m a n u f a c t u r e r of VCSs. T h e s e a r e e l e c t r o n l c u n l t s

comprislng a m u l t l c l r c u l t u n i t anil a u x l l x a r y cqu1pmc:nt.

A t a r l I n c . d l s t r i b u t e s t h e s e u n l t s w o r l d - w l d e t h r o u q h

d l s t r l b u t o r s who a r e authorized t o s e l l t o r e t a l l e r s who

t r a d e I n p a r t l c u l a r a r e a s . I n A u s t r a l i a t h e a p p l c a n t ,

F u t u r e t r o n l c s , i s t h e sole d l s t r l b u t o r .

The respondent, having purchased a q u a n t l t y o f A t a r i

VCSs o u t s ~ c l e A u s t r a l l a , has Imported them i n t o A u s t r a l i a

and se l l s them t o p u r c h a s e r s by r e t a l l a s Atsrl VCSs,

whxch t h e y a r e . A t a r l i s t h e r e g l s t e r e d p r o p r l e t o r o f

two t rademarks In Aus t ra l la . One , t h e word A'calI and the

o t h c r being a dev lce . Th? two t rademarks a re normal l y

. . .. ,

3 .

used In cor . j l Inct lon, the o n e with t h e o t h e r , anci t h a t 1 s

being done I n respec t of the goods In qucs’clon which hear

t h c words Atarl and the devlce . A s I h a v e l n d l c a t e d ,

t h a t mark was p ; a c e d t h e r e b y t h e a p p l i c a n t , A t a r l .

There 1s no c o n t r a c t u r a l r e l a t l o n s h l p b e t w e e n A t a r l

and t h e r e s p o n d e n t , P a l r s t a r E l c c t r o n i c s P t y . L t d . , a n d

n o e v l d e n c e t h a t I n r a d i n g In A u s t r a l i a b y r e t a l l ,

F a l r s t a r 1s I n any con t r ac tu ra l b reach 111 r e l a t i o n t o any

person. :t is s a l d t h a t b y s e l l l n g t h e g o o d s i n

A u s t r a l i a w l t h t e mark upon them the a p p l l c a n t i s

in f r lng lng the t r ademark .

This argument M ~ S or ig lna l . ly suppor ted by r e f e r e n c e t o

c e r t a l n obl ter d i c t a i n W.D. h H . O . W21ls ( A u s t r a l i a )

Ltd. v . Rothmans Ltd. (1956) 9 4 C.L.R. 193 and t o t h e

view expressed by M r . J u s t i c e S t a r k e I n Atar l v . Smi th

(1990) 33 A . L . R . 20, t h a t ~ u d g m e n t b e l n q g i v e n on 2 6

November 1980.

I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e t h e f a c t s w e r e v e r y much l l k e t h o s e

i n t h i s c a s e a n d M r . J u s t ~ c e S t a r k e came t o t h e

concl .uslon that It was a r g u a b l e t h a t I n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

descr lbed above the respondent by i t s conduct might be

d e s c r i b e d a s i n f r l n g l n g t h e h t a r i t r a d e m a r k . H e

c o n s l - d e r e d t h e b a l a n c e of convcn lence and gave

l n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f . T h a t c a s e was s e t t l e d a n ? t h e

1 s s u e r e m a n e d j u C l ~ c ~ a l L y w h e r c It thcn was. The ground

upon which M r . J u s t i c e S t a r k c f e l t a n ai-gunlent- might he

supported was the c l l f f e rence l n l anguage be tween t ha t In

s . 6 of the Commonwealth Trademark A c t of 1959 and t h a t ~n

..

S . 3 of the Enqllsh Trademark Act of 1965. The lmportance

of t h l s was t h a t when t h e c a s e o f Chanlmqne Hcldsleck

Monopolc Soc1.ete e t c l e . Monopole Soc1.ete Anonyme v .

-- _-_-_- --

Buxton (1930) 47 R.P .C . 2R ( t h e Champaqne Case) was

d e c l d e d , t h e r e l e v a n t d c f l n l t l o n of "trademark" was t h a t

I n S. 3 of the Eng l l sh A c t of 1905. Had it not been fo r

t h a t d l f f e r e n t l a t l o n I l z n q u a g e , Mr. J u s t i c e S t a r k e

wou ld have cons lde red t ha t t he dec i s ion i n t he Champaane

Case	was	d e c i s l v e	a g a l n s t	the	o p p l l c a n t .	The	m a t t e r
--

h a v i n g b e e n a r g u e d b e f o r e me a t some l e n g t h I am

persuaded tha t he a rgument ln favour of t h e a p p l i c a n t s

i s , a l thouqh a rguab le , l e s s a rguab le t han wa5 cons idered

by Mr. Jus t l ce S t a rke . The re seems t o be much a u t h o r l t y

approv lnc j t he dec i s ion In t he Champaqne Case -- and lt

a p p e a r s t h a t 3 t does no t depend upon the d l f fe rence i n

terminology of the two sections. I t depends upon the

fundamental nature of a trademark a s de f ined by Clauson

J. i n the Champaqne Case. Tne cr j t i ca l c o n s l d e r a t l o n i s

t h a t t h e r e g i s t e r e d p r o p r l e t o r of a trademark i s t o have

t h e r l g h t . e v c l u s i v e l y t o use such t radcmark In the sense

of prevent- ing others f rom sel l ing wares whjch are n o t h ~ s

marked wlth 111s tradernark. A s put by Clauson J. adsp t lng

what 1s sa ld In Ker l ey on Trademarks (6th Ecl l t~on) at

5 .

'I. . . t he u se o f a mark by the defendant. ,

whlch j S r e l l e d on a s an l n f r inqe lwn t , mus t

be a u s e upon goods wh>.ch m-e n o t Che genuine

goods 1.e. t h o s e upon wh.:hlch Ehe p l a l n t l f f ' s

mark 2s proper ly used , for anyone may use t h e -

p l a i n t i f f ' s mark on t h e p l a x n t l f f ' s goods,

since that cannot cause the decept lon which

1s t h e t e s t o f i n f r l n g e m e n t ."

S e e f o r c l a r l f l c a t l o n , the ~urlqment of Clauson J. a t p.36

I n t h e Champagpe Case.

M r . Merkel has r e l i e d upon the language of S .62 o f t h e

A u s t r a l i a n Act and it cannot he denied that hose words,

, a s t h e y s t a n d , a r e c a t e g o r i c a l a n d p u r p o r t t o show t h a t

any use a t a l l by a person other t h a n t h e p r o p r l e t o r or

t h e r e g l s t e r e d u s e r o f a mark I n t h e c o u r s e o f h l s t r a d e ,

i s unlawful . In the c a s e of James Mlnifle & Co. v. Edwin

Davey & Sons (1933) 49 C . L . R . 349 a t p. 361 M r . J u s t i c e

D1xon - as he then was - s a i d :-

"It 1s s a l d t h a t the acknowledqed pollcy of

the Trade Marks A c t 1s t o s t r e n g t h e n and

p r o t e c t w l t h new remedles a form of p r o p e r t y

or p r o p r i e t a r y r l g h t a l r e a d y e x l s t i n g a n d n o t

t o c r e a t e a new one, and, accordingly, tha t what 1s forh ldden i s a use of t h e mark a n a l o g o u s t o tha t wh ich wou ld amoun t t o

p a s s i n g o f f . R u t t h i s method of reasoning 1s

of l l t t l e a s s l s t a n c e b e c a u s e t h e v e r y

ques t lon may be s a id t o be whether , fo r t h e

p r o t e c t x o n t h e o f e x l s t l n g f o r m o f

p r o p r l e t a r y r l g h t or I n t e r e s t , the s t a t u t e

h a s n o t made It an in f r lngement t o u s e t h e

mark I n r e s p e c t of goods 111 any way I n t h e

cour se o f t r ade . I t IS, p e r h a p s , t r u e t h a t

the words a r e c a p a b l e of an appl lca t lon whlch

would go beyond use In t rade or bus~.ness and

e x t e n d t o u s e 111 t h e h a n d s o f u l t i m a t e

consumlers o r u t l l ~ . z e r s of t h e goods. B u t ,

6.

w h l l e ~t 1 s n a t u r a l t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e

2 anguage of a p r o v ~ s l o n i n the Trade Marks

Act a s r e s t r ~ t e d t o comnercial and trariilng

o p e r a t l o n s , some firmer qround 1s needed t o

s u p p o r t a n l m p l l c a t l o n f u r t h e r r e s t r l c t l n g

1ts meanlng . There 1 s g o o d r e a s o n f o r

prevent lng any USE of a t r a d e mark upon o r I n

connect lon wlth goods which t ends t o confuse

the p u b l l c a s t o w h a t It s2gnlf1 es and so to

i m p a l r t h e r e p u t a t i o n whr.hlch t h e r e g l s t e r e d

p r o p r l c t o r h a s o h t a l n e d o r 1s s e e k i n g t o

obtaln under It."

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e It c a n n o t b e s a l d t h a t t h e u s e o f

the t rademark by the respondent in connec-t ion wlth the VCSs

does	tend	t o confuse the p u b l l c as t o what It s lgni f les or
t o	lmpalr	the r e p u t a t l o n w h i c h t h e r e g l s t e r e d p r o p r i e t o r

h a s , or 1 s seeking t o obta in , under it. I t appears t o me

to be acknowledged or r a t h e r t o be Impl ied In !:hat h is

Honour s a y s , t h a t h e D r a c o n l a n terms of s.62 a r e t o be

construed according t o the fundamental nature of what a

trademark 1s.

The Champagne Case has never been sald t o be lnaccura t e

and has many times been approved. A s to S .62, I have h e n

0 r e f e r r e d t o a s h o r t b u t c r l t l c a l p a s s a g e I n the judgment of

W l l l l a m s J . i n Mark Foy's Llml ted v . Dav ies Coop - a n d

Company L l m l t e d and Another (1956) 95 C . L . R . 190 a t p . 204..

We are speaking of s.62, or r a t h e r , t h e equivalent, namely

S .S3 of the A c t as It then was. H e said:-

"Sec t ion 53 i s rea l ly an appendaye t o S . 50

and I t s functi.on 1s t o wlden t h e d z f l n l t l o n

of lnf r inqement so a s to Inc lude cases wherr

the defendant rloos not u s e the i r l e n t l c a l

7 .

t r a d e mark b u t s e s a mark s u h s t a n t i a l l y

l d e n t l c a l w l t h ~t o r so near ly resemblxnq it

a s t o he l i k e l y to dece lve . Ru t he a l l eqed

lnfr lngement m u s t stlll be t h e u s e of t h e

p l a l n t l f f ' s t r a d e mark o r some m a r k

s u b s t a n t l a l l y	l d e n t l c a l	with	it	a s	a	t r a d e
mark. "

I do not f lnd anywhere any suggestion t h a t s .53 a s It

then was o r S .G2 as It now i s , a r e n e c e s s a r i l y t o h e r e a d

e n t l r e l y l l t e r a l l y and with each word extending i n t o e v e r y

a spec t o f t r ade to wh lch they a re capab le of r e f e r r l n g , t h e y

a r e r e a d w l t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o the fundamental nature of a

trademark.

I t seems t o be n o t v l g o r o u s l y d l s p u t e d t h a t lf s . 6 2 1 s t o

be read It, t h e r e would In the way I n whlch M r . Merkel would ask me t o r e a d

be ser ious consequences In ordlnary conmerce

I n r e l a t l o n t o cases where people buy on the o r d i n a r y market

goods whlch are sold \nth t rademarks a f f lxed t o t hem. A s

t he peop le who buy a t a u c t l o n or buy bankrupt s tocks or

people w h o buy I n o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i f t h e y a r e t o d e a l

with them a t a l l , t h e y m u s t d e a l w i t h them under the name by

whlch t ey ln f r lng lng t r ademarks are known. If doing so, such persons were

I have a s u s p i c l o n t h a t t h e r e would b e

some r e l e v a n t a u t h o r l t y w h l c h would make t h a t c l e a r .

If such people are n o t l n f r l n g l n q the trademark one

reason would be that once a manufacturer puts a trademark on

h i s qocds and se11.3~ khem Into the c o u r s e o f t r a d e on t h e

h l l l o w ~ n g ocean of t rade, wherever people bona f lde d e a l

n .

wlth those goods unds r t ha t name and by re ference t o t h a t

t r ademark , no t t c l l l nq any I l e s or mlslendlng anyone In any

way a t a l l , t h e y a r e s l m p l y n o t l n f r l n q l n g t h e t r a d e m a r k .

They are not "us lnq" the mark i n t h e r e l e v a n t s e n s e . T'ne

A c t 1 s CO be read by cons ldera t lons such as these and these

musc be the cons jdera t lons whlch ultimately s u p p o r t t h e

Champagne Case. Accordlngly, o n the whole I must concede

t h a t the appllc?.nts have a case which I see 1s arguable b u t

I cons ide r fo r t he r easons which I have g lven It 1 s l l k e l y

t o be found wantlng.

When I come t o t h e q u e s t l o n of whether the respondent i s

c o n d u c t i n g I t s e l f I n a m l s l e a d i n g f a s h i o n i n s t a t l n g t h e

v a r r a n t l e s t h a t It g l v e s , I am n o t s a t i s f l e d t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s c a s e h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d . I t i s p e r f e c t l y

c l e a r t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t c a n n o t g l v e any warranty whlch

would bind Futuretronlcs and it does not seek t o do SO. I t

t e l l s i t s cus tomers In p la ln l anguage tha t It c a r r i e s o u t

Its own warranty work and I n e f f ec t t e1 l . s cus tomers tha t If

anythlng goes wrong wlth t h e l r sets t o b r m g them back and

a t l e a s t If they do so w1th1.n 90 days their compl.alnt will

b e d e a l t w l t h and the u n l t w l l l e l t h e r be repalred by them

or w l l l be rep laced .

T h a t ; I n e f f e c t , IS t h e same klnd of w a r r a n t y t h a t

P u t u r e t r o n l c s I t s e l f q l v e s t o i t s customers . The o n l y

dl€r 'erence ?.$ t h a t F v C u r e t r o n l c s make 7.t c o n d l t l o n a l on

9.

ge t t lnq back t he war ran ty ca rd whereas Chc respondent does

no t . Both p a r t l e s p u r p o r t t o exclude any 3mpljed warranty.

Whether t h a t 1s Intended t o e x c l u d e t h e w a r r a n t l c s which

a r l s e u n d e r t h e c o n d l t l o n s o f p a r t 17 of the Trade Prac ' i lces

A c t one does not know. But It ].S c l e a r t h a t t o p u r p o r t t o

exclude lmplled warrant1.e~ i s , I n t h e s e d a y s , m i s l e a d i n g .

The p u b l l c i s c n t l t l e d t o know t h a t t h e r e 1.s a l e a y s t h e s e

days a	war ran ty	o f	merchan tab i l l t y	or	q u a l l t y	I m p l i e d	b y
law.

I have looked a t a l l the affidavits whrrhlch have been f l l e d

a n d , o f c o u r s e , o n e r e a l l s e s t h a t t h e whole o f t h l s

proceeding a r l s e s o u t h e f a c t h a t h e a p p l l c a n t 1 s

d l s tu rbed t ha t t he r e sponden t has been ab le t o a c q u l r s

substantial q u a l l t l e s of these a r t i c l e s . I t may have some

genuine fear t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s n o t t h e s k i l l t o c a r r y

o u t t h e r e p a l r s w h i c h a r e l l k e l y t o be r e q u l r e d h y

customers, but the ev ldence wou ld suqges t t ha t excep t fo r

t h e r e p a l r l n q o f w h a t m ~ g h t be c a l l e d t h e i n c l d e n t a l and

a n c i l l a r y f u n c t l o n s o f the TJCSs , the unl t s per rorm very w e l l

and it i s n o t v e r y l l k e l y t h a t I n 90 days many o f t h e u n i t s

are l l k e l y t o be found defect lve In what mlqht be desc r ibed

as the l r fundamen ta l s . If t h e y a r e , t h e n o n e would oubt

thc competence of F u t u r e t r o n i c s o r a n y b u t a very I lmi.ted

number of sk1.1led persons l.? A u s t r a l l a t o r e p a l r them znd,

goi-nq on coxTon knowledge, t o endeavourr t o u n r a v e l t h e

t ang led c l r - cu l t ry of t h e m a g l c d l c l r c u l t s o f t h e s e u ~ l l t s .

I t would n o t be commercially rational, one would l u s t

throw t h e u n l t away and rep lzce lt wlth allother one. Thls

i s what Futnre t ronlcs seen t.o sugqest mlght happen and lt 1 s

what would happen with the respondent.

T h e m a t t e r h a s come l l q h t t o b e c a u s e t h e o f

adve r t l s emen t s by Pu tu re t ron lc s o f f e r lng t h ree ad r l l t l ona l

c a r t x l d g e s t o p e o p l e who have bought an Atar l VCS fro21 any

shop, any shop In Aus t ra l la , p rovided however tha t the

warran ty card be r e t u r n e d t o F u t u r e t r o n i c s . One c a n n o t h e l p

b u t f e e l t h a t a t l e a s t one ob jvec t lve of t h l s was t o f l u s h

o u t t he peop ie who had purchased unl t s from t r a d e r s lJke t h e

respondent who i s s u e no warran ty card .

I t 1 s o n l y n a t u r a l t h a t p e o p l e who p u r c h a s e d f r o m

F a l r s t a r , knowlng t h a t F a i . r s t a r d i d i t s own s e r v i c i n q ,

lcnowlng t h a t It had no warranty f rom Futuretronics or f rom

A t a r l , f e l t t h a t s the goods were Atar l goods , tha t

Fa l rs ta r were very busy se l l lng Atar l goods and should seek

t o g e t h e t h r e e f r e e c a r t r l d g e s . They c o u l d n o t g e t the

three c a r t r l d g e s b u t the f a c t h a i t h e y w e r e disappointed

was r e a l l y d u e t o t h e f o r m o f F a l r s t a r ' s a d v e r t l s e m e n t w h i c h

lnvl ted everybody, wherever they had pu rchased t he l r un l t s

t o	apply.
When T come t o ;he ques t lon o f t he ba l ance of convenlence

I d o n o t f i n d t h a t t h e r e has been any r ea l In t e r f e rence wlth

11..

t h e qoodwl.11 of the a p p l l c a n t s . The a p p l l c a n t s ’ business IS

so- t remendous tha t the smal.1 l r r l t a t l o n s whlch ave been

caused t o some c u s t o m e r s , l a r g e l y h r o u q h t a b o u t b y h e

conduct of F u t u r e t r o n l . c s l t s e l f , has been m l n i m a l . There 1 s

no evldence that any person who has purchased a VCS from t h e

r e sponden t has been d l s sa t l s f i ed w i t h t h e a r t l c l e ~n any

r e s p e c t . I n some c a s e s t h e 90 day pe r lod has exp l r ed , In

o t h e r c a s e s It IS explrxng rapldly. Rut , of c o u r s e , I n a l l

c a s e s t h e s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t y wlll p e r s l s t and people who

h a v e g o t undoubtedly s o m e t h l n q t h a t 1 s f u n d a m e n t a l l y b a d w l 1 . l

recelve new machlnes In p lace thereof . But one

lmagxnes t h a t h e q u a l l . t y of t h e s e a r t l c l e s i s s u c h t h a t

fundamental defects are n o t l l k e l y t o be numerous.

There 1s a p r o s p e c t t h a t t h l s c a s e w l l l come on I n March

and d m e c t i o n s t o t h a t e f f e c t h a v e b e e n a p p l l e d f o r a n d h a v e

been granted. If the respondent were res t ra ined from

t r a d i n g l n t h e s e a r t l c l e s d u r l n g t h e n e x t t h r e e m o n t h s h e

would be r e s t r a i n e d I n r e l a t i o n t o a b o u t o n e q u a r t e r of hxs

t o t a l t u r n o v e r . I certainly f e e l t h a t t h e o n l y b a s l s r e a l l y

on whlch an I n j u n c t i o n c o u l d b e s o u g h t i n t h i s c a s e would b e

I n r e l a t l o n t o t h e t r a d e m a r k . I t is my g e n e r a l v l e w t h a t I n

t h e end t h e p r o b a b i l l t l e s a r e t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t s ’ c a s e o n

tha t g round will not succeed. Of course it 1s obvious from

what I h a v e s a l d t h a t It w l l l r e q u i r e f u l l c o n s l d e r a t l o n a t

t h e t r l a l .

1 2

Therefore , I t h l n k t h a t t h e damaqe t o t h e applicants by

t h e r e f u s a l o f an l n j u n c t l o n , wlll cause l t no I r r e p a r a b l e

harm and u l t l m a t e l y Indeed mlnlnlal harm In a y respect should It

h e s u c c e s s f u l I n I ts a c t l o n to r e s t r a l n t h e

respondent from s e l l l n g t h e u n i t s a t a l l . On the o t h e r

hand, such a r e s t r a l n t a t thls tune wlll g r e a t l y a f f e c t t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ’ s b u s l n e s s over a c r l t l c a l t m e of t h e y e a r .

The respondent has consented t o glve an u n d e r t a k i n g t h a t

he w l l l I n r e s p e c t of all f u t u r e s a l e s a t t a c h t o t h e g o o d s

0 or de l lve r i n connec t lon wl th the goods a warran ty i n terms

whlch have b en submltted t o t h e c o u r t a n d upon tha t

undertaking belng glven, I v r l l l r e f r a l n from glv ing any

r e l l e f by any ln t e r locu to ry o rde r s such a s has been sough t .

I defence t o be glven 2 8 days from th ls d a t e . w l l l ad jou rn t he summons l n d e f m l t e l y . I order a

I order t h a t

t h e n u t u a l d i s c o v e r y w i t h o u t n o t l c e s 1 4 d a y s a f t e r the

d e f e n c e h a s b e e n d e l i v e r e d . I n t e r r o g a t o f l e s may be

0 d e l l v e r e d 1 4 d a y s a f t e r d l s c o v e r y or r a t h e r s h a l l be

d e l l v e r e d n o t la ter t h a n 7 d a y s a f t e r d l s c o v e r y : T h a t t h e r e

be answers wlthln 14 days of the d e l l v e r y of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s

and t h a t h e p a r t l e s c o n s u l t w l t h t h e registrar as t o a n

e a r l y h e a r a n g I n t h e New Year and t h a t t h e r e b e l l b e r t y to

e l t h e r p a r t y ques t lon o f cos t s o f t o a p p l y a s It may be ailvlsed. I r e s e r v e the i

these proceedinqs.

: ,

13.

I also order that the respondent. untll the hearlng and

determlnatlon of the actlon keep the following accounts and

records:

An account of the proflt made by the respondent by the lmportatlon and sale of the vldeo computer systems and cartrldges bearlng and/or under and/or

In relatlon to the sald trademarks or any of them.

An account and record of any and/or sums recelved by the respondent as a result of the sale by it of the said cartrldges bearing and/or under and/or in relation to the said trademarks or any of them.

An account and record of the cost CO the respondent of the Importatxon and sale of all the sa3.d cartrldges sold by the respondent bearlng

and/or under and/or In relatlon	to	the sald
trademarks or any of them.