Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd

Interlego AG, a company from Liechtenstein, brought an action against Croner Trading Pty Ltd, an Australian company, in the Federal Court of Australia. Interlego AG manufactures Lego bricks and other toys, and Croner Trading Pty Ltd manufactures and sells toy bricks that are compatible with Lego bricks. The dispute centres on copyright in drawings of the toy bricks, the compatibility of the products, and whether there has been passing off under the Trade Practices Act 1974. The court was required to decide whether copyright subsists in drawings of toy bricks made before the commencement of the Copyright Act 1968, whether these drawings constituted designs capable of being registered, and whether modified drawings are original works in which copyright subsists. The court also needed to determine if there was a defence available under section 77 of the Copyright Act 1968 regarding activities before and after the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1989, and whether there was an overlap between copyright and designs law in the context of these toy bricks.

The court considered the historical context of copyright and designs law in Australia and the specific provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and Designs Act 1906. It examined whether the drawings in question were original works capable of being protected by copyright and whether the modifications made to the drawings after the commencement of the Copyright Act 1968 constituted original works. The court also analysed the compatibility of the toy bricks and whether there had been passing off or misrepresentation by Croner Trading Pty Ltd. The admissibility and weight of survey evidence presented by the parties were also evaluated. Ultimately, the court determined that the pre-1968 drawings did not subsist in copyright, and the modified drawings were not original works in which copyright subsisted. The court also found that there was no overlap between copyright and designs law in this context and no passing off or misrepresentation by Croner Trading Pty Ltd.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed Interlego AG's claims in their entirety. The court held that the pre-1968 drawings did not subsist in copyright, and the modified drawings were not original works in which copyright subsisted. The court found no defence available under section 77 of the Copyright Act 1968 for activities before and after the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1989. Additionally, the court held that there was no overlap between copyright and designs law and no passing off or misrepresentation by Croner Trading Pty Ltd. Consequently, the claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 were also dismissed. The court ruled that the survey evidence presented by Interlego AG was inadmissible and did not carry sufficient weight to support their claims. The final orders of the court were that Interlego AG's claims against Croner Trading Pty Ltd were dismissed, with no orders as to costs.