FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chen v Diversipak Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCA 1314
File number: NSD 1387 of 2018 Judge: BROMWICH J Date of judgment: 10 August 2018 Date of publication of reasons: 27 August 2018 Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application for leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to commence proceedings against company in liquidation
TRADE MARKS – application for an interim injunction preventing liquidator of company from selling company goods – where applicant claims that the goods infringe her registered trade mark
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 471B, 500(2)
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s 27(1)(b)
Cases cited: Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Unleash Solar Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 348
Insight Radiology Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1406; 122 IPR 232
Vagrand Pty Ltd(In Liq) v Fielding (1993) 41 FCR 550
Date of hearing: 10 August 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Trade Marks Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 25 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Kaylinger Solicitor for the Applicant: Alder IP Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr D Turner of Assured Legal Solutions ORDERS
NSD 1387 of 2018 BETWEEN: LAY SIENG CHEN
Applicant
AND: DIVERSIPAK PTY LTD ACN 122 831 707 (IN LIQUIDATION)
Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 AUGUST 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant be refused leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the respondent in liquidation.
2.The originating application be dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcriptBROMWICH J:
These reasons concern the question of leave to commence proceedings against a company in liquidation and the question of interlocutory relief.
By an originating application, the applicant, Ms Lay Sieng Chen, brings a proceeding against Diversipak Pty Ltd ACN 122 831 707 (in liquidation). Ms Chen was a director of Diversipak until 25 May 2017, when she was terminated from that position by the provisional liquidator. She was then an employee of the company in liquidation until she resigned on 29 June 2018. Her letter of resignation purported to terminate a licence to use a trade mark registered in her name. That trade mark was registered with a priority date of 31 July 2009. It consists of the words “Diversipak Packaging Solutions”, with an image above it in a stylised form of two open boxes forming the letters “DP”. Broadly speaking, Ms Chen is concerned that the liquidator of Diversipak has sold and will continue to sell stock bearing this trade mark in the winding up of the company.
The relief Ms Chen seeks in the originating application is as follows (verbatim):
1.Leave under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the Respondent.
2.Orders in relation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Chen v Diversipak Pty Ltd (in liq) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1314
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to determine were whether Chen was entitled to leave to commence proceedings against Diversipak and whether an interim injunction should be granted to prevent the liquidator from selling the goods. The court had to consider the balance of convenience and whether Chen had a serious question to be tried.
The court found that Chen did not have a serious question to be tried as her claims were speculative and there was no evidence that the goods sold by the liquidator were infringing her trade mark. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the liquidator as the sale of the goods was necessary to pay the company’s creditors. The court held that Chen was not entitled to leave to commence proceedings against Diversipak and dismissed the originating application. The court ordered that Chen pay the liquidator’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant be refused leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the respondent in liquidation.
2. The originating application be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.