FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sony Computer Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Stirling [2001] FCA 1852
DAMAGES – quantum – where Court satisfied applicant entitled to more than nominal damages – where evidence insufficient to quantify damage suffered accurately – appropriate method of determining award of damages
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where party awarded judgment for less than $100,000 – whether Order 62 Rule 36A applies – factors to be considered
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules Order 62 Rule 36A
Enzed Holdings Limited & Others v Wynthea Pty Limited & Ors (1984) 3 IPR 619 followed
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD & ANOR v KAREN STIRLINGN 1233 OF 2000
EMMETT J
5 DECEMBER 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1233 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 077 583 183)
FIRST APPLICANTKABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
KAREN STIRLING
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicants are entitled to judgment for damages:
(a) for trade mark infringement pursuant to s 126 of the Trade Marks Act 1995; and
(b) for breach of ss 9, 10 and 12 of the Fair Trading Act (NSW) pursuant to s 159 of the Fair Trading Act (Vic),
such damages to be fixed in the sum of $3000.2. The respondent pay the sum referred to in Order 1 to the applicants by 1 March 2002.
3. The provisions of Order 62 Rule 36A of the Federal Court Rules not apply.
4. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding from 16 June 2001.
5. The applicants inform the respondent as soon as practicable of the terms of these Orders and of the effect of Order 35 Rule 7(2)(a).
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 1233 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 077 583 183)
FIRST APPLICANTKABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
KAREN STIRLING
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
5 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 15 June 2001, for the reasons that I then delivered, I made orders in favour of the applicants declaring that the respondent had infringed registered trade marks and restraining the respondent from further infringement. Other orders were also made requiring the respondent to furnish sworn information concerning infringements of the trade marks prior to that time. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent in purported compliance with the orders that I made. For the most part, the affidavits contain assertions that the respondent kept no record of, and has no recollection of, the quantum of sales of compact disks for use in connection with Sony Play Station consoles.
The matter was fixed for hearing today for the purposes of assessing the applicants’…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sony Computer Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Stirling 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1852
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Stirling had infringed Sony's trade marks as he sold video games with packaging that closely resembled that of genuine Sony games, thereby misleading consumers into believing the games were authorised by Sony. The court also found that Stirling had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, as his actions were likely to mislead or deceive consumers about the authenticity and approval of the games by Sony. Consequently, the court held that Sony was entitled to damages for both the trade mark infringement and the misleading or deceptive conduct.
The court ordered that Stirling pay Sony $3000 in damages and cover Sony's costs from 16 June 2001. The court further ruled that the respondent was to pay the damages by 1 March 2002, and that the specific provisions of Order 62 Rule 36A of the Federal Court Rules did not apply. Finally, Sony was required to inform Stirling of the terms of these orders and the effect of Order 35 Rule 7(2)(a).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicants are entitled to judgment for damages:
(a) for trade mark infringement pursuant to s 126 of the Trade Marks Act 1995; and
(b) for breach of ss 9, 10 and 12 of the Fair Trading Act (NSW) pursuant to s 159 of the Fair Trading Act (Vic),
such damages to be fixed in the sum of $3000.
2. The respondent pay the sum referred to in Order 1 to the applicants by 1 March 2002.
3. The provisions of Order 62 Rule 36A of the Federal Court Rules not apply.
4. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding from 16 June 2001.
5. The applicants inform the respondent as soon as practicable of the terms of these Orders and of the effect of Order 35 Rule 7(2)(a).
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
Established by: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.