Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd v Keller Industries Pty Ltd - [2006] FCA 1504

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd & Anor v Keller Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] FCA 1504
PATENTS – licence to exploit invention – term of licence – whether revocable – effect of liquidation of licensee
TORT – trespass to land – unauthorised entry
TORT – conversion – rights of bailor – whether bailment determined
TRADE MARKS – use of mark – mark used in promotional correspondence – whether mark used in relation to goods
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – representation of entitlement to use trade mark
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 20
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53, 75B
City Motors(1933)Pty Ltd v Southern Aerial Super Service Pty Ltd (1961) 106 CLR 477
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Eiliott (1946) 74 CLR 204
Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407
PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542) AND X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242) v KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534), KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534), PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542), X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242), COLIN LINDSAY TAGGERT AND JOHN ASHALL
VID902 OF 2006
JESSUP J
14 NOVEMBER 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID902 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542)
First Applicant

X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242)
Second Applicant

AND:

KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534)
First Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534)
Cross Claimant

AND:

PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542)
First Cross Respondent

X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242)
Second Cross Respondent

COLIN LINDSAY TAGGERT
Third Cross Respondent

JOHN ASHALL
Fourth Cross Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be listed for further hearing on a date to be fixed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID902 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542)
First Applicant

X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242)
Second Applicant

AND:

KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534)
Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534)
Cross Claimant

AND:

PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542)
First Cross Respondent

X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242)
Second Cross Respondent

COLIN LINDSAY TAGGERT
Third Cross Respondent

JOHN ASHALL
Fourth Cross Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

14 NOVEMBER 2006

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The first applicant, Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd (‘Prismex Technologies’), is the owner of Australian Patent No 647834 (‘the patent’) for an invention referred to as a display system (‘the invention’). In 1995, Prismex Technologies granted to Interium Pty Ltd (‘Interium’) an exclusive licence to exploit the invention,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd v Keller Industries 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FCA 1504
Decision Date: 14 NOVEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Keller Industries Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for losses allegedly arising from breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to deliver certain products on time, leading to financial losses, and had engaged in misleading conduct by providing inaccurate information about the products' capabilities.

The court had to determine whether there were valid contractual obligations breached by the defendant and whether the conduct of the defendant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law. The central issue was whether the plaintiff could substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence to warrant an award of damages.

The court found that while there was evidence of delays in delivery, the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that these delays were due to any breach by the defendant. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendant's conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct. The judge highlighted that the plaintiff needed to establish a clear link between the defendant's actions and the alleged losses. As the plaintiff could not provide such evidence, the court dismissed the claims. Consequently, the proceeding was listed for further hearing on a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding be listed for further hearing on a date to be fixed.

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

JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID902 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542) First Applicant X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242) Second Applicant
AND:	KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534) First Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	KELLER INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 070 739 534) Cross Claimant
AND:	PRISMEX TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 069 870 542) First Cross Respondent X-POSITION PTY LTD (ACN 120 575 242) Second Cross Respondent COLIN LINDSAY TAGGERT Third Cross Respondent JOHN ASHALL Fourth Cross Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID902 OF 2006

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	14 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE