Shacklady v Atkins - [1994] FCA 960

960

JUDGMENT No. ........ ...

.,..,,J ,,-.

C A T C H W O R D S

WEBLMXUAL PROPERTY - Copyright - whether copyright subsists in models and drawings of a yacht - infringement - whether flop-moulding from an existing yacht to produce a new yacht embodying the features of the protected work constitutes an infringing act - reproduction by copying in three dimensions from a three dimensional copy of the work - Designs - overlap between the

and -the - whether copyright protection lost through the industrial application of an unregistered corresponding design - temporal scope of the legislatwe provisions - whether the design industrially applied - whether an article was sold - meaning of "article" and "sale" - meaning of "design" - whether the drawings disclosed a registrable design - whether shape of design dictated solely by function.

m	l968 (Cth) - ss 21, 31,36, 77

11906 ss4(1), 17, 17A

v	(1990) 26 FCR 393

(1992) 39 FCR 348

td (1987) 11 IPR

. .

k t r o n ~

Patents C0 J,td [l9831 FSR 5

Press-F-

(1993) 40 FCR 274

rt A-

Ptv J .td v Puma A

ustralia Ptv Ltd (1985) 4 IPR 120

. .

v. Federal

of Taxation (1932) 48 CLR 178

M v Jvlacbeth & G w

[l9041 AC 223

[l9651 Ch D 1

Warman

v. F.nvirotech Australia Ptv Ltd (1986) 6 IPR 578

WEA Rec-

(1990) % ALR 365

(1992) 107 ALR 465

Davies J

30 November 1994

Sydney

12 DEC 1994

FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REQISTRY

COURT OF AUSTRAJ.IA	1
)

NEW	SOUTH WAJ .FS DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NG 423 of 1994
1 1

BETWEEN: POBERT SHACKLADY

Applicant

First Respondent

Second Respondent

LhWn:	Davies J
l2&:	30 November 1994
&!X	Sydney

COURT D

1. Copyright subsists in the model, exh E, and the drawings exhs RS1 to RS34 inclusive produced by Mr J.E. Adams for the Adams 10 Class Yacht.

2. The applicant IS, and has been slnce 9 December 1993, the owner of, and entitled to the copyright in all of the drawings exhs RS1 to RS34

inclusive for the yacht known as the Adams 10 Class Yacht.

3. The application be otherwise dismssed.

Costs be reserved.

&&xE Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt wlth in Order 36 of the Federal

Court Rules.

FF.DF.RA1. COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1 1

NEW SOUTH WALFUSTRICI' REGISTRY	) NG 423 of 1994
1

BETWEEN: -

Applicant

m: -

First Respondent

PATRICK CBBBQbEL

Second Respondent

-	!ham:	Davies J
RE&:	30 November 1994
u!x:	Sydney

The applicant, Mr Robert Shacklady, has been involved in the construction and supply of yachts for approximately 20 years.

In October 1984, he purchased the

moulds for the Adams 10 and the Adarns 10 Cruislng yachts.

The Adams 10 is a 33

foot racing yacht and Adams 10 is a…

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.

Continue reading Shacklady v Atkins

Details

AGLC: Shacklady v Atkins [1994] FCA 960
Case: [1994] FCA 960
Decision Date: 30 Nov 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shacklady v Atkins involves a dispute over copyright in the design of a yacht, specifically the Adams 10 Class Yacht. The applicant, Robert Shacklady, seeks a declaration that copyright subsists in the model and drawings produced by Joseph Alan Adams, and that he is the owner of the copyright in the drawings. He also seeks an injunction and an order for delivery up of certain articles. The respondents, Robert Atkins and Patrick Carroll, have taken action to have Adams 10 yachts constructed by a builder independent of Shacklady's organisation. The court must decide whether copyright subsists in the model and drawings, whether the respondents are threatening to infringe the copyright, and whether the respondents have put themselves at risk by initiating inquiries inconsistent with Shacklady's claimed rights. The court finds that copyright does subsist in the model and drawings, and that the respondents have put themselves at risk. However, section 77 of the Act applies, and the threatened reproduction of the design would not be an infringement of the copyright. The court makes a declaration of ownership of the copyright as sought and dismisses the application otherwise, reserving costs.

Orders