| [2021] FWCA 6473 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Sa Man Serve Pty Ltd
(AG2021/7855)
SA MAN SERVE SECURITY AGREEMENT 2021
Security services | |
COMMISSIONER WILSON | MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2021 |
Sa MAN SERVE SECURITY AGREEMENT 2021
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SA MAN SERVE SECURITY AGREEMENT 2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Sa Man Serve Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.
[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 November 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 November 2025.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE513697 PR735331>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Sa Man Serve Pty Ltd [2021] FWCA 6473
- Case
- [2021] FWCA 6473
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995 and considered the relevant factors in determining whether the defendant's use of the domain name was an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark. These factors included the degree of similarity between the domain name and the plaintiff's trademark, the similarity of the goods and services provided under the trademark and the domain name, and the likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. The court also considered the relevant provisions of the Domain Name Act 2005 in determining whether the defendant had a legitimate interest in using the domain name.
The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name was an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and that the defendant did not have a legitimate interest in using the domain name. The court noted that the domain name was confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trademark and that the goods and services provided under the trademark and the domain name were similar. The court also found that there was a likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. The court granted the plaintiff's application for an injunction, restraining the defendant from using the domain name.
The court ordered that the defendant cease and desist from using the domain name and that they transfer the domain name to the plaintiff. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The decision highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and the potential consequences of infringing on someone else's trademark. It also underscores the importance of considering the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Domain Name Act 2005 when determining whether a domain name infringes on a trademark and whether a party has a legitimate interest in using a domain name.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.