Nintendo Company Ltd v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning copyright infringement. The parties involved were Nintendo Company Ltd (appellant) and Centronics Systems Pty Ltd, Maurice Latin, and Tiberio Salice (respondents). The dispute centred on whether the respondents had the requisite knowledge of copyright subsistence and infringement to be liable under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the High Court was to determine the meaning of "knowledge" as it pertains to copyright infringement under sections 37 and 38 of the Copyright Act, and the related concept of what a party "ought reasonably to have known." Specifically, the court had to consider whether relying on legal advice that denied infringement, despite being put on notice of a claim, could negate the knowledge requirement.

The court considered various authorities, including *Sillitoe v McGraw-Hill Book Co* and New South Wales decisions such as *Albert v Hoffnung* and *RCA Corporation v Custom Cleared Sales*. The reasoning emphasised that "knowledge" is not solely about a reasonable person's general understanding, but rather about the inferences that can be drawn from the concrete factual situation as it affects the particular person whose knowledge is in question. This includes express knowledge or knowledge that the defendants must have had, or ought reasonably to have had, given the circumstances and the passage of a reasonable time after notice of a claim. The court noted that the statutory language in sections 37 and 38 uses "knowledge," while section 19(3) also incorporates the concept of "ought reasonably to have known."