Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case of Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd (No 3) involved a dispute between Mr Knight, an internationally acclaimed writer, and Beyond Properties Pty Ltd and Beyond International Ltd (collectively ‘Beyond’), companies involved in the production and distribution of television programs. Mr Knight alleged that Beyond had infringed his rights by using the name ‘mythbusters’ for their television series, without his authority. The case was brought before the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages or an account of profits in respect of alleged contraventions of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and passing off. Beyond, in turn, filed a cross-claim against Mr Knight, alleging that he had misrepresented to customers and prospective customers of Beyond, claiming that the production or broadcast of the ‘mythbusters’ television series constituted a contravention of ss 52 and 53 of the TP Act and passing off. The court was required to decide whether Mr Knight’s representations to Beyond’s customers and prospective customers constituted a serious question to be tried and if Beyond had demonstrated that it would obtain relief on its cross-claim.

The court found that there had been no final hearing of the proceeding, and neither party had been held to be right or wrong in their claims. Beyond must show that there is a serious question to be tried that it will obtain relief on its cross-claim. The court held that Beyond's motion brought by notice of motion filed on 17 February should be dismissed with costs. The representations made by Mr Knight to Beyond’s customers and prospective customers fell into three broad categories: (a) representations that any broadcast, use, or other dealing with Beyond’s ‘mythbusters’ television series or spin-offs from the series would constitute an infringement of Mr Knight’s rights by reason of contravention of the TP Act and passing off; (b) representations that any person dealing with Beyond’s mythbusters series or any spin-off from it would be joined as a respondent to the present proceeding; and (c) representations that Beyond was ‘unreliable or untrustworthy (in some murky sense)’ or that Beyond was dealing with the mythbusters series or spin-offs from it, knowing that it was infringing Mr Knight’s rights. The court found that the particular representations Mr Knight had made fell into three broad categories and that Beyond must show that there is a serious question to be tried that Mr Knight will fail.

ORDERS:
1. The motion brought by the first and second respondents/cross-claimants by notice of motion filed on 17 February 2006 be dismissed.
2. The first and second respondents/cross-claimants pay the applicant/cross-respondent’s costs of the motion.