Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 72 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Futuretronics.com.au Pty Limited v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1621

CONTRACTS – IDENTIFICATION OF TERMS – IMPLIED TERMS – where applicant company marketed for sale “skins” – where applicant arranged for first respondent company to manufacture skins – where no agreement as to price – where no agreement as to minimum term or quantity – where first respondent subsequently manufactured and marketed skins for itself in competition with applicant – whether informal contract between applicant and first respondent – whether implied term of any contract that first respondent would not manufacture skins except to supply applicant – where alleged implied term unlimited as to time and circumstances of operation

Held: No binding contract except upon the placing of an actual order by the applicant and acceptance of the order by the first respondent – not necessary for the reasonable or effective operation of contract to imply term

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – where skins product bore artwork – where copyright in artwork owned by applicant – where first respondent licensed to reproduce artwork pursuant to arrangement to manufacture skins for applicant – where first respondent reproduced artwork in brochure for its own use – where first respondent gave spares of skins product bearing artwork to third party – whether reproduction of artwork a breach of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – whether giving of spare product a breach of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – whether breach of implied term of license that first respondent not to use artwork or spare product except for the purposes authorised by applicant

Held:  Reproduction of artwork in brochure breach of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – giving spare product to third party did not breach Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – giving spare product to third party breach of implied term of license

EMPLOYMENT LAW – DUTIES OF EMPLOYEE – where second respondent employee of first respondent – where second respondent former employee of applicant – where confidentiality agreement between second respondent and applicant – where second respondent arranged future employment with first respondent while employed by applicant – where second respondent, while still employed by applicant, emailed first respondent regarding future plans for forthcoming employment – where second respondent, after cessation of employment with applicant, pursued business opportunity to sell skins product to customer of applicant – where second respondent, after cessation of employment with first respondent, disclosed to third party name of applicant’s supplier – whether second respondent breached contract of employment with applicant – whether second respondent breached confidentiality agreement with applicant – whether second respondent breached fiduciary duties owed to applicant – whether second respondent breached employee’s duties under s 182 or s 183 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Held:  Email communications from second respondent to first respondent while still employed by applicant did not reveal confidential information nor contain any business opportunity diverted from applicant – no evidence that applicant company time misused by second respondent – email communications did not constitute breach of contract – email communications…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels 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
[2007] FCA 1621
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd sought relief against Graphix Labels Pty Ltd and Mr Atta for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act. The case was heard and decided in the Federal Court of Australia. Futuretronics claimed that Graphix Labels and Mr Atta had made misleading representations regarding their rights to produce and market skins, as well as their rights to the manufacturing materials and artworks used in the skins.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether Graphix Labels and Mr Atta had indeed made misleading representations and, if so, whether Futuretronics had been misled or deceived to its detriment. The court also had to consider the potential relief that Futuretronics was entitled to under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act, if any. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether Futuretronics was entitled to relief for copyright infringement and breach of an implied term in relation to the artworks.

The court found that Futuretronics was not entitled to relief under the Trade Practices Act or the Fair Trading Act. It ruled that any alleged misleading representations regarding Graphix Labels' rights to produce and market skins on its own behalf were not misleading or deceptive, as that point had been decided in Graphix Labels' favour. Furthermore, Futuretronics no longer pursued its claim regarding the rights to the manufacturing materials. As for the rights in the artworks, the court concluded that Futuretronics was not entitled to relief because there was no need for an injunction and no proof of damage, which is a prerequisite for a cause of action for damages under the Trade Practices Act or the equivalent section of the Fair Trading Act. However, Futuretronics did establish an infringement of copyright and breach of an implied term in relation to the artworks.

The court dismissed Futuretronics' claims against Graphix Labels and Mr Atta except for the copyright infringement and breach of an implied term in relation to the artworks. It adjourned the proceeding to allow the parties to make submissions regarding the appropriate orders in light of these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

BESANKO J
In my opinion, Futuretronics is not entitled to relief under either the Trade Practices Act or Fair Trading Act. Insofar as the alleged representations relate to the right of Graphix Labels to produce and market skins on its own behalf, that point has been decided in that company’s favour and the representations (even if made) were not misleading or deceptive. Insofar as the alleged representations relate to the rights to the manufacturing materials, Futuretronics no longer presses its claim in relation to that matter. Insofar as the alleged representations relate to rights in the artworks, I do not think Futuretronics is entitled to relief. I say that because the undertakings mean that there is no need for an injunction and, absent proof of at least some damage, it has not been established that there is a cause of action for damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act or the equivalent section under the Fair Trading Act.Conclusion Futuretronics has established an infringement of copyright and breach of implied term in relation to the artworks. Otherwise, its claims against Graphix Labels and Mr Atta must be dismissed. I will adjourn the proceeding to a date to be fixed to enable the parties to make submissions as to the appropriate orders in light of these reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BESANKO J

Full text does not contain this section.