Legal Research
Cases
CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd

CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 4 April 2003 24 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CSR Limited v Resource Capital Australia Pty Limited [2003] FCA 279
TRADE PRACTICES – domain names – injunction – cyber squatting – whether registering a domain name through the business name of a non-trading company solely for the purpose of selling or trading the domain name to another company which has a business interest in that name constitutes misleading and deceptive conduct in the course of trade or commerce.
TRADE MARKS – domain names – cybersquatting – whether registering a domain name through the business name of a non-trading company solely for the purpose of selling or trading the domain name to another company which has trade marks rights in that name constitutes infringement where the domain name would never have been used as a trade mark in relation to goods or services.
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 120
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52, s 53, s 79, s 80
Federal Court Rules O 37 r 3(1)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd [1998] 4 All ER 476 – followed
Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 16 IPR 431 – followed
S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Life Saver Pty Ltd (1998) 88 FCR 354
Architects (Australia) Pty Ltd (trading as Architects Australia) v Witty Consultants Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 139 – referred to
Australian Stock Exchange Ltd v ASX Investor Services Pty Ltd (Burchett J, 3 June 1999, unreported) – referred to
Miller Miller’s Annotated Trade Practices Act 1974 (24^th Ed) 2003
CSR LIMITED (ACN 000 001 276) v RESOURCE CAPITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 077 553 765)
N 1124 of 2002
HILL J
4 APRIL 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1124 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

CSR LIMITED (ACN 000 001 276)
APPLICANT

AND:

RESOURCE CAPITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 077 553 765)
FIRST RESPONDENT

MARCUS STEPHEN BOLAND
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The first respondent by itself, its servants, or agents or otherwise be restrained from using as part of a domain name or otherwise the "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" names, any trade mark including the name "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" or any other name, word or mark substantially identical with or misleadingly, deceptively or confusingly similar thereto.

The second respondent be restrained from using as part of a domain name or otherwise the "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" names, any trade mark including the names "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" or any other name, word or mark substantially identical with or misleadingly, deceptively or confusingly similar thereto.

The first respondent within 7 days take all necessary steps to transfer the domain name "csrsugar.com" to the applicant.

Order pursuant to Order 37, rule 3(1), that, if the first respondent does not comply with Order 3, a Registrar of the Federal Court sign all necessary documents to transfer…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CSR Ltd v Resource Capital Australia 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCA 279
Decision Date: 4 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Ltd initiated proceedings against Resource Capital Australia Pty Ltd and others, alleging infringement of trade marks and passing off, in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought relief concerning the use of the names "CSR" and "CSR Sugar", including their use as domain names, and other materials featuring these names. The primary legal issues were whether the respondents had infringed the plaintiff's trade marks and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by using the contested names and domain names. The court needed to determine whether the respondents' use of the "CSR" and "CSR Sugar" names constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's trade marks and whether such use was misleading or deceptive, potentially causing damage to the plaintiff's business reputation.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the distinctiveness of the "CSR" and "CSR Sugar" names, the likelihood of confusion among consumers, and the respondents' intent. The court found that the respondents' use of the "CSR" and "CSR Sugar" names was likely to cause confusion and mislead the public, leading to a finding of both trade mark infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also considered the potential damage to the plaintiff's business reputation and the need to protect its trade marks. Based on these findings, the court issued comprehensive orders to restrain the respondents from using the contested names and domain names and to ensure compliance with the plaintiff's requests regarding the transfer of domain names and the surrender of materials bearing the contested names.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent by itself, its servants, or agents or otherwise be restrained from using as part of a domain name or otherwise the "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" names, any trade mark including the name "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" or any other name, word or mark substantially identical with or misleadingly, deceptively or confusingly similar thereto.

2. The second respondent be restrained from using as part of a domain name or otherwise the "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" names, any trade mark including the names "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" or any other name, word or mark substantially identical with or misleadingly, deceptively or confusingly similar thereto.

3. The first respondent within 7 days take all necessary steps to transfer the domain name "csrsugar.com" to the applicant.

4. Order pursuant to Order 37, rule 3(1), that, if the first respondent does not comply with Order 3, a Registrar of the Federal Court sign all necessary documents to transfer the domain name "csrsugar.com" to the applicant or as the applicant directs.

5. The first respondent within 14 days deliver up to the solicitor for the applicant any business stationery, business cards, artwork, packaging design or other document bearing either of the names or marks "CSR" or "CSR Sugar" or any other name or mark which includes the name "CSR".

6. The second respondent do all such acts and execute all such documents as may be necessary or desirable to be done or executed in order to procure the first respondent to comply with Orders 3 and 5.

7. The respondents pay the applicant's costs.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The Registrar of the Court to forward a copy of this judgment to Melbourne IT Limited with the suggestion that when dealing with Resource Capital Australia Pty Limited or Mr Boland or any company in which Mr Boland is a director, it require from him a statutory declaration both that at the time he seeks registration he is unaware of any trade mark or business or company name identical with or substantially similar to the domain name he seeks to register and does not hope or intend to transfer or agree to transfer that domain name to another person.

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

HILL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HILL J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1124 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	CSR LIMITED (ACN 000 001 276) APPLICANT
AND:	RESOURCE CAPITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 077 553 765) FIRST RESPONDENT MARCUS STEPHEN BOLAND SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY