Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 747

Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 747

INTEL CORPORATION & ANOR v GENOVESI ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 074 529 589) (trading as INTEL FINANCIAL SERVICES) & ANOR

N 1256 OF 2000

LINDGREN J

13 JUNE 2001

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1256 OF 2000
BETWEEN:INTEL CORPORATION

FIRST APPLICANT

INTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 798 214)

SECOND APPLICANT

AND:GENOVESI ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 529 589) (trading as INTEL FINANCIAL SERVICES)

FIRST RESPONDENT

GIANFRANCO JOSEPH GENOVESI

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.       The first respondent, whether by its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from advertising, promoting, selling, offering to sell, supplying or offering to supply or distributing any goods or services under or by reference to any name or mark which incorporates the word INTEL or any other name or mark substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the word INTEL.

2.       The first and second respondents, whether by their servants, agents or otherwise, be restrained from authorising or procuring or being in any way directly or indirectly a party to or concerned in the conduct restrained by Order 1 above.

3.       The respondents take all necessary steps to execute all necessary documents to change the business name used by the first respondent to a name that does not include the word INTEL or a name that is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the word INTEL, and to notify the Ministry of Fair Trading (WA) of the first respondent's change of business name within seven days of the date of this order.

4.       The respondents pay the applicants' costs.

Note:       Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1256 OF 2000
BETWEEN: INTEL CORPORATION

FIRST APPLICANT

INTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 798 214)

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: GENOVESI ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 529 589) (trading as INTEL FINANCIAL SERVICES)

FIRST RESPONDENT

GIANFRANCO JOSEPH GENOVESI

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE: 13 JUNE 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1       The applicants move on a notice of motion filed on 21 May 2001 for certain orders which, in fact, I propose to make. The evidence establishes that the notice of motion and supporting affidavits were served on the respondents on 23 May 2001. Neither respondent, although called outside the Court today, has appeared.

2       The applicants move under Order 10 rule 7, or, alternatively, Order 20 rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules for the relief identified in pars 1, 2 and 3 of the application by which the proceeding was commenced on 22 November 2000.

3       Order 10 rule 7 provides, relevantly, that:

"(1) Where a party fails to comply with an order of the Court directing that party…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Intel Corporation v Genovesi Enterprises 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
[2001] FCA 747
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Intel Corporation sought relief against Genovesi Enterprises Pty Ltd and another respondent, claiming infringement of its intellectual property rights, specifically the unauthorised use of the word "INTEL" in their business name. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents' use of the word "INTEL" in their business name constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under Australian law.

The court found that the respondents' use of the word "INTEL" was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, given the established reputation and goodwill of the applicant's trademark. The court emphasised the importance of protecting well-known trademarks from dilution and the potential for harm to the applicant's business if the respondents were allowed to continue using the disputed name. The court also noted the respondents' lack of any genuine defence or justification for their use of the trademark.

Consequently, the court issued an injunction restraining the respondents from using the word "INTEL" in their business name and required them to take steps to change their business name within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs associated with the proceedings. This decision reinforces the significance of protecting established trademarks and the rights of trademark holders against potential infringement and unfair competition.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent, whether by its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from advertising, promoting, selling, offering to sell, supplying or offering to supply or distributing any goods or services under or by reference to any name or mark which incorporates the word INTEL or any other name or mark substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the word INTEL.

2. The first and second respondents, whether by their servants, agents or otherwise, be restrained from authorising or procuring or being in any way directly or indirectly a party to or concerned in the conduct restrained by Order 1 above.

3. The respondents take all necessary steps to execute all necessary documents to change the business name used by the first respondent to a name that does not include the word INTEL or a name that is substantially identical with or deceptively similar to the word INTEL, and to notify the Ministry of Fair Trading (WA) of the first respondent's change of business name within seven days of the date of this order.

4. The respondents pay the applicants' 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.