FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DESIGNS - registered design of mining conveyor module - infringement proceeding - cross-claim for expungement of registration of the design - appeal from trial Judge’s holding that registration of design prohibited because not new or original, and order for rectification of Register of Designs - whether design novel or original - whether substantial difference in appearance from prior art - design to be looked at as a whole - whether common trade variant - whether design to be compared with one particular earlier design, or with “‘fundamental form’ of conveyor structures well-known in the industry” - whether trial Judge impermissibly “made a mosaic” of items of prior art.
Designs Act 1906 (Cth), ss 4(1), 17(1)(a), 18(1), 30(1)
Macrae Knitting Mills Ltd v Lowes Ltd (1936) 55 CRL 725 - applied
British Franco Electric Pty Ltd v Dowling Plastics Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 448 - followed
Interlego AG v CronerTrading Pty Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 348 (FC) - distinguished
Firmagroup Australia Pty Ltd v Byrne & Davidson Doors (Vic) Pty Ltd (1987) 180 CLR 483 - distinguished
CONROL PTY LIMITED v MECO McCALLUM PTY LIMITED & ANOR
NG 626 of 1996
BURCHETT, LINDGREN & LEHANE JJ
SYDNEY
9 DECEMBER 1997
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | NG 626 of 1996 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: | CONROL PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 622 795) | |
AND: | MECO McCALLUM PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 408 368) STRATFORD HALL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 227 190) | |
JUDGES: | BURCHETT, LINDGREN, LEHANE JJ | |
DATE OF ORDER: | 9 DECEMBER 1997 | |
WHERE MADE: | SYDNEY | |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | NG 626 of 1996 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: | CONROL PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 622 795) |
AND: | MECO McCALLUM PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 408 368) STRATFORD HALL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 227 190) |
JUDGES: | BURCHETT, LINDGREN, LEHANE JJ |
DATE: | 9 DECEMBER 1997 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
INTRODUCTION
The appellant, Conrol Pty Limited (“Conrol”) is registered as the owner of design number 111016 under the Designs Act 1906 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of a “conveyor module” used for conveying bulk materials from mineral extraction sites (in this case coal mines) to processing or treatment plants and other destinations, sometimes over long distances (“the Design”).
The first respondent, Meco McCallum Pty Limited (“Meco”) sold to Kembla Coal & Coke Pty Limited (“KCC”), in July 1993 and subsequently, quantities of conveyor modules and of belt conveyor transoms made by Meco itself, or made for Meco by the second respondent, Stratford Hall Pty Limited (“Stratford”). In the proceeding below, Conrol pleaded that Meco had infringed Conrol’s monopoly in the Design by applying it or an obvious or fraudulent imitation of it to articles in respect of which it…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Conrol Pty Ltd v Meco McCallum Pty Ltd 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
- [1997] FCA 1407
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether there was a breach of contract by the respondent and, if so, whether the breach warranted termination of the contract. The court was required to determine the extent of any damages owed by the respondent to the appellant, and whether the appellant had a valid claim for termination of the contract.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent had indeed breached the contract by failing to meet the completion deadline and by delivering substandard work. The court held that the breach was material and justified termination of the contract. However, the court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support a claim for damages beyond the cost of completing the project. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument for termination of the contract, ruling that the appellant had not acted in accordance with the contractual provisions for termination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.
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.