LED Builders Pty Ltd v. Eagle Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 584
Copyright - Account of Profits
COPYRIGHT - infringement - copyright in floor plans for project homes - whether copying of a substantial part - whether houses built in accordance with floor plans which infringed applicant's copyright also infringed that copyright - no evidence that houses built exactly in accordance with infringing floor plans or other evidence of appearance of houses - quantum of profits where houses built in accordance with infringing floor plans - whether part of building profit included - quantum of damages where no houses built in accordance with infringing floor plans -whether applicant entitled to additional damages.
ACCOUNT OF PROFITS - infringement of copyright in floor plans for project homes - construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans - proper measure of account of profits - whether respondent must account for all profits made from construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans - whether respondent must account only for saving made through use of infringing floor plans - whether profits should be apportioned - proper basis for apportionment - whether allowance should be made for overheads - whether construction of houses in accordance with infringing floor plans involved opportunity cost - whether overheads should be allowed on an incremental or absorption basis - whether overheads should be allocated on basis of revenue or average cost - whether applicant can be awarded additional damages where it elects for an account of profits in respect of an infringement.
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 21 (3), 115
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 51A
Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 138, applied
Bradbury, Agnew & Co v Day (1916) 32 TLR 349, considered
Chabot v Davies [1936] 3 All ER 221, considered
LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551, referred to
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Kis (Australia) Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 283, referred to
S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466, considered
Dyason v Autodesk Inc (1990) 24 FCR 147, considered
Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigal Homes Pty Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 265, applied
Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd [1971] 2 NSWLR 278, considered
Robert J Zupanovich Pty Ltd v B & N Beale Nominees Pty Ltd (1995) 59 FCR 49, considered
Burke and Margot Burke Ltd v Spicers Dress Designs [1936] Ch 400, considered
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25, applied
Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp 309 US 390 (1940), applied
My Kinda Town v Soll [1982] FSR 147, considered
Potton Ltd v Yorkclose Ltd [1990] FSR 11, distinguished
Peter Pan Manufacturing Corp v Corsets Silhouette Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 96, distinguished
Siddell v Vickers (1892) 9 RPC 152, distinguished
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 584
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the validity of LED Builders' intellectual property claims and found them to be insufficiently substantiated to warrant injunctive relief. It also considered the enforceability of the contract between Eagle Homes and the third party, finding no basis to declare it void or unenforceable. The court held that the relief sought by LED Builders was not appropriate given the findings on the intellectual property claims and the enforceability of the contract.
LED Builders' application for interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court ordered the proceedings to be stood over to allow for further submissions on the issue of costs and the making of appropriate orders. The applicant was required to notify the respondent and the Associate to Lindgren J if they wished to make submissions on the specified issue. The parties were also directed to submit agreed short minutes of the orders to be made or, if no agreement could be reached, short minutes of the orders they would respectively contend along with an outline of their submissions in support.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The proceedings be stood over to 21 May 1999 at 9.30 am for the making of orders, including orders as to costs.
(2) The applicant notify the respondent and the Associate to Lindgren J by 14 May 1999 if the applicant wishes to make submissions in relation to the issue raised at paras 181-184 of the Reasons for Judgment published this day.
(3) The parties submit to the Associate to Lindgren J by 20 May 1999 agreed short minutes of the orders to be made or, if agreement has not by then been reached, short minutes of the orders for which they will respectively contend and an outline of their respective submissions in support.
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.