Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation

Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd, the appellant, contested a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which found that they had infringed copyright in certain designs owned by Roland Corporation, the respondent. The respondent had alleged that the appellant had infringed copyright in two devices by reproducing them in a catalogue and publishing that catalogue. The appellant claimed that there was no infringement as they had an implied licence to do so, or that the respondent's copyright was invalid. The Full Court found in favour of the respondent and the appellant appealed. The appeal was dismissed and the respondent's cross-appeal was allowed. The court declared that the appellant had infringed the respondent's copyright in the two devices and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had an implied licence to reproduce and publish the respondent's designs, and whether the respondent's copyright in the designs was invalid. The court considered whether the appellant had an implied licence to reproduce the designs based on previous dealings between the parties, and whether the respondent's copyright was invalid because the designs were not "corresponding designs" within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968. The court also considered the onus of proof in relation to copyright infringement.

The court found that there was no evidence of an implied licence to reproduce and publish the respondent's designs. The court held that the appellant had the onus of proving that there was an implied licence and that they had failed to do so. The court also found that the respondent's copyright in the designs was valid and that the designs were "corresponding designs" within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968. The court held that the respondent had established that the appellant had infringed their copyright in the designs and that the appellant's defences were unsuccessful. The court found that the appellant had reproduced the designs in their catalogue and published that catalogue, which was an infringement of the respondent's copyright. The court held that the appellant's argument that the respondent's copyright was invalid was also unsuccessful. The court found that the respondent's designs were "corresponding designs" within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968 and that the respondent had established that they had copyright in those designs. The court held that the appellant's argument that the respondent's copyright was invalid because the designs were not original was also unsuccessful. The court found that the respondent's designs were original and that the respondent had established that they had copyright in those designs.