Holden Ltd v TTF Dandenong Pty Ltd - [2004] VSC 175

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST

No. 8946 of 2003

HOLDEN LTD AND ANOTHER	Plaintiffs
v
TTF DANDENONG PTY LTD AND OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 MAY 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 MAY 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HOLDEN LTD & ORS v TTF DANDENONG PTY LTD & ORS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 175

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Alleged infringement of design and unauthorised use of trade mark – Alleged misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off – Whether particulars given in defences sufficient – Admissions by some defendants that they were sole directors and shareholders of various corporate defendants – Non-admission of day to day control - Inference of control of corporate defendants open on such admissions – Risk that at trial defendants will not be permitted to call evidence to meet such an inference in the absence of any particulars of denial of control – Inconsistent pleading in relation to ownership of design and monopoly rights in it – Requirement under Intellectual Property list Rules that particulars of any invalidity of design be given .

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr G Fitzgerald	Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick
For the First to Seventhnamed Defendants	Mr N Jones	Deacons
For the Eighthnamed Defendant	Mr A Patterson	Leo Dimos & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me on a directions hearing in the Intellectual Property List a dispute about the sufficiency of the pleadings and particulars put forward on behalf of the first to seventh defendants.

The first plaintiff, Holden Ltd., is the well known Australian motor vehicle manufacturer. The second plaintiff, General Motors Corporation, is its American parent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are involved in the business of selling wheels and wheel caps for motor vehicles. It is alleged in the amended statement of claim that some of the wheels in which the defendants trade incorporate a design of which the first plaintiff is the registered proprietor and over the use of which that plaintiff has a monopoly; or, alternatively, incorporate a fraudulent or obvious imitation of that design. It is also alleged in the amended statement of claim that the second plaintiff is registered as the owner of two trade marks (a lion with ball device and the word “HOLDEN”). According to the amended statement of claim, the defendants or some of them have illegally traded in wheel caps that bear the lion trade mark (referred to in the amended statement of claim as the “Lion Trade Mark”), or a deceptively similar trade mark. Moreover, the first defendant, without the licence or authority of either of the plaintiffs, has in relation to vehicle wheels used as a trade mark a sign that is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the “HOLDEN” trade mark. Allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off are also made.

The fourth defendant is, so…

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 Holden Ltd v TTF Dandenong 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: [2004] VSC 175
Decision Date: 21 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Holden Ltd, the plaintiff, and TTF Dandenong Pty Ltd, along with other defendants, in a dispute concerning alleged infringement of design and unauthorised use of a trade mark, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the particulars provided in the defences were sufficient under the circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the defendants had adequately addressed admissions by some of them that they were the sole directors and shareholders of various corporate defendants. This admission raised an inference of control over these corporate defendants, and the court needed to determine if the absence of particulars denying such control would prevent the defendants from calling evidence to counter this inference at trial.

Additionally, the court had to consider the inconsistent pleadings regarding the ownership of a design and the monopoly rights associated with it. Under the Intellectual Property list Rules, the court required particulars of any invalidity of the design to be given. The court was tasked with assessing whether the defendants had provided sufficient particulars to address these issues effectively. The court's reasoning focused on the necessity of clear and precise pleadings to ensure a fair trial, and the outcome hinged on whether the defendants' pleadings met the required standards.

The court concluded that the particulars provided were insufficient. It found that the admissions of sole directorship and shareholding without any particulars to deny control could lead to a prejudicial inference at trial. Furthermore, the inconsistent pleadings regarding the design and monopoly rights did not comply with the Intellectual Property list Rules. As a result, the court held that the defendants' pleadings were inadequate and required further particulars. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to provide more detailed responses to address these deficiencies within a specified timeframe.

Orders