Microsoft Corporation v CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd (No.4)
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 2465
•29 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Microsoft CORPORATION v CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd (No.4) [2018] FCCA 2465
[2018] FCCA 2465
29 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) brought proceedings against CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd (CPL) alleging copyright infringement of its operating system software, trade mark infringement of its Windows and Microsoft trade marks, and misleading and deceptive conduct. The matter came before Judge Street in the Federal Court of Australia.
The court was required to determine whether CPL had infringed Microsoft's copyright in its operating system software and its trade marks. It also had to consider whether CPL had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Further, the court needed to assess the appropriate damages for these infringements, including the possibility of awarding additional damages.
Judge Street found that CPL had infringed Microsoft's copyright and trade marks. In relation to copyright infringement, the court determined the licence fee that would have been payable for the unauthorised use of the software and awarded damages accordingly. The court also considered the provisions for additional damages under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and awarded a sum reflecting the flagrancy of the infringement. For the trade mark infringement, damages were awarded at large. The court also made declarations regarding CPL's misleading and deceptive conduct.
The court was required to determine whether CPL had infringed Microsoft's copyright in its operating system software and its trade marks. It also had to consider whether CPL had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Further, the court needed to assess the appropriate damages for these infringements, including the possibility of awarding additional damages.
Judge Street found that CPL had infringed Microsoft's copyright and trade marks. In relation to copyright infringement, the court determined the licence fee that would have been payable for the unauthorised use of the software and awarded damages accordingly. The court also considered the provisions for additional damages under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and awarded a sum reflecting the flagrancy of the infringement. For the trade mark infringement, damages were awarded at large. The court also made declarations regarding CPL's misleading and deceptive conduct.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Damages
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Breach
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
6