Redbubble Ltd v Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Limited

In Redbubble Ltd v Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Redbubble Ltd, sought relief from the Federal Court of Australia against the defendant, Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Limited, for trade mark infringement and other related causes of action. The dispute centred on the alleged infringement of the defendant's trade marks through the display of images on Redbubble's website, which the defendant claimed were used without authorisation. The court had to determine several complex legal issues, including the scope of the releases in a settlement agreement, the extra-territorial application of certain sections of the Trade Marks Act 1995, and the quantification and availability of various forms of relief, including nominal and additional damages, as well as injunctive relief.

The court first considered the interpretation of the releases in the settlement agreement and concluded that the releases did not preclude the defendant from pursuing the present proceeding. Regarding the extra-territorial application of section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995, the court found that the images in question were available to consumers in the ordinary course of trade, thus falling within the scope of the Act. In relation to the damages, the court assessed the de minimis non curat lex principle, finding that the infringement was not trifling or technical, and awarded nominal damages. Additionally, the court awarded additional damages under section 126(2) of the Act, considering the deterrent effects and Redbubble's content moderation procedures. Finally, the court granted final injunctive relief under section 126(1) of the Act, restraining Redbubble from using the trade marks except as badges of origin.

The final orders of the court included a directive for the parties to agree on a short minute of order within seven days, with specific instructions regarding the redaction and disclosure of the reasons for judgment. The court also imposed restrictions on the publication of the reasons for judgment to protect sensitive information, with provisions for any disagreements between the parties to be resolved within a specified timeframe.