Hunter Pacific International Pty Ltd v Martec Pty Ltd

Hunter Pacific International Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Martec Pty Ltd, alleging that Martec had infringed a registered design for a ceiling fan hub. The court was tasked with determining whether Martec's product was substantially similar in overall impression to the registered design, thereby constituting an infringement. The case involved an analysis of the similarities and differences between the registered design and Martec's product, with consideration given to the freedom to innovate in the design of ceiling fan hubs.

The court examined the nature of the registered design and Martec's product, taking into account the function of the designs and the extent of innovation in the field. The court noted that while the designs exhibited differences, there were also significant and eye-catching similarities that created an overall impression of substantial similarity. The court concluded that the differences were insufficient to displace the substantial similarity between the registered design and Martec's product. The applicant was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, and the proceeding was stood over to allow for further orders.

In its decision, the court held that Martec's product was substantially similar in overall impression to the registered design, constituting an infringement. The applicant was directed to file and serve a draft minute of its proposed orders and notify the respondent whether it proposed to pursue its claim for pecuniary relief. The proceeding was stood over to a date to be fixed for making further orders, with entry of orders to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court's determination provided clarity on the scope of protection afforded by registered designs and the factors to be considered in assessing infringement.