Sony Computer Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Hinson

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sony Computer Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Hinson [2000] FCA 1290

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAIMENT v NICHOLAS HINSON

N 154 OF 2000

LEHANE J
5 SEPTEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 154 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED FIRST APPLICANT
KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	NICHOLAS HINSON RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants be granted the relief sought in the following paragraphs of the short minutes of order annexed to the report of the hearing on 5 September 2000: 1, 2 (amended by substituting for the word “damages” the words “pecuniary relief”), 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13.

2.The matter be listed for directions in relation to outstanding issues at 9.30 am on 6 December 2000.

3.The parties have liberty to apply on three days’ notice.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 154 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED FIRST APPLICANT
KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	NICHOLAS HINSON RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE:	5 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicants seek, in the absence of the respondent, orders finally disposing of the proceeding except in relation to pecuniary relief.  They also seek an order for the filing of an affidavit by the respondent by way of discovery in aid of their claims for pecuniary relief. 

2. Although the respondent is not represented and was not present at the hearing, I am satisfied by evidence read on behalf of the applicants that he has been served with documents in accordance with orders which I have made on previous occasions.  The respondent has also sent directly to the Court two affidavits, one received in my chambers on 4 July 2000 and the other on 31 August 2000.  From them it is clear, and I think it is permissible for me to take account of them to this extent, that the respondent is aware of the proceedings, that he is aware particularly of the applicants’ proposal to seek final orders, and that he admits certain acts of infringement.

3. The claims which the applicants make relate to alleged infringements by the respondent of two registered trade marks, number 642679 and number 642678.  The former mark is a device which I need not, I think, further describe.  The second comprises the word – because what would normally be two words are run together – “PlayStation”.  Each mark is registered in respect of computer game players combined with CD‑ROM drives and software therefor.

4. In each case the second applicant is registered as the owner of the mark. In the statement of claim there is an allegation that the first applicant is…