StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd v Rotondo - [2008] QSC 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd v Rotondo & Anor [2008] QSC 181

PARTIES:

STATUSCARD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(plaintiff)
v
TONY ROTONDO
(first defendant)
and
DOMINIC DIBIANI (AKA DEREK DI SILVA)
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 792 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2008 – 17 July 2008

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $760,000 together with interest at 9 per cent from 1 July 2002 to the date of judgment.

2. Order that the first defendant by himself, servants or agents be restrained from reproducing, whether in electronic or paper form, or selling copies of the plaintiff’s operating manual, a copy of which was exhibit 7 in these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – INFRINGEMENT – APPROPRIATION OF ORIGINAL WORK – where plaintiff claims for copyright in a computer screen display – where plaintiff claims for copyright and an injunction in the program manual – whether infringement of copyright

Legislation

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s10, s21(1A), s24, s32, s31,s115

Cases

Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171

Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 593

Cuisenaire v Reed [1963] VR 719

Interfirm Comparison (Australia) Pty Ltd v Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 6 ALR 445

Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273

Libraco (Ltd) v Shaw Walker (Ltd) (1913) 30 TLR 22. In an older case, Page v Wisden (1869) 20 LT (NS) 435

Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 305

Navitaire Inc v Easy Jet Airline Co Ltd (2006) RPC 111

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (2007) EWCA CIV 219

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (2007) EWCA CIV 219

Odham’s Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting Newsagency (1929), Ltd [1935] 1 Ch 672

Pryor v Landsdown Press Pty Ltd [1977] VR 65 at 70 and Australasian Performing Rights Association v Grebo Trading Co Pty Ltd (1978) 23 ACTR 30

Real Estate Institute of NSW v Wood (1923) 23 SR (NSW) 349

University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601

University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479

COUNSEL:

Mr L Bowden for the plaintiff
Defendant in person

SOLICITORS:

QBM lawyers for the plaintiff

The plaintiff carries on the business of selling computer programs to those who wager money on the relative speeds of horses, or of dogs. The purpose of the program is to increase the chances of placing a winning wager. The punters who buy the plaintiff’s program are not those who attend a day at the races to enjoy the convivial society of like-minded people, or the sight of noble animals…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd v Rotondo 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QSC 181
Decision Date: 19 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Rotondo, asserting claims of copyright infringement. The plaintiff argued that Rotondo had appropriated the original work by reproducing and distributing its computer screen display and operating manual without authorisation. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with deciding whether Rotondo had indeed infringed on the plaintiff's copyright by reproducing and selling copies of the operating manual, and by reproducing the computer screen display. The legal issues revolved around the ownership and scope of the plaintiff's copyright, as well as the specific acts of infringement alleged by the plaintiff.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the originality and fixation of the computer screen display and the operating manual. The court found that the plaintiff had established a valid copyright in both the computer screen display and the operating manual. Furthermore, the court determined that Rotondo had reproduced and sold copies of the operating manual, which constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright. The court granted the plaintiff an injunction to prevent further reproduction and sale of the manual, and awarded damages in the amount of $760,000, along with interest.

The court made an order for judgment in favour of the plaintiff against Rotondo, awarding damages of $760,000 along with interest from 1 July 2002 to the date of judgment. Additionally, the court issued an injunction restraining Rotondo from reproducing or selling copies of the plaintiff’s operating manual.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $760,000 together with interest at 9 per cent from 1 July 2002 to the date of judgment.

2. Order that the first defendant by himself, servants or agents be restrained from reproducing, whether in electronic or paper form, or selling copies of the plaintiff’s operating manual, a copy of which was exhibit 7 in these proceedings.

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.

CITATION:	StatusCard Australia Pty Ltd v Rotondo & Anor [2008] QSC 181
PARTIES:	STATUSCARD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (plaintiff) v TONY ROTONDO (first defendant) and DOMINIC DIBIANI (AKA DEREK DI SILVA) (second defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 792 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2008 – 17 July 2008
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $760,000 together with interest at 9 per cent from 1 July 2002 to the date of judgment. 2. Order that the first defendant by himself, servants or agents be restrained from reproducing, whether in electronic or paper form, or selling copies of the plaintiff’s operating manual, a copy of which was exhibit 7 in these proceedings.
CATCHWORDS:	INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – COPYRIGHT – INFRINGEMENT – APPROPRIATION OF ORIGINAL WORK – where plaintiff claims for copyright in a computer screen display – where plaintiff claims for copyright and an injunction in the program manual – whether infringement of copyright Legislation Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s10, s21(1A), s24, s32, s31,s115 Cases Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171 Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 593 Cuisenaire v Reed [1963] VR 719 Interfirm Comparison (Australia) Pty Ltd v Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 6 ALR 445 Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273 Libraco (Ltd) v Shaw Walker (Ltd) (1913) 30 TLR 22. In an older case, Page v Wisden (1869) 20 LT (NS) 435 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 305 Navitaire Inc v Easy Jet Airline Co Ltd (2006) RPC 111 Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (2007) EWCA CIV 219 Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (2007) EWCA CIV 219 Odham’s Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting Newsagency (1929), Ltd [1935] 1 Ch 672 Pryor v Landsdown Press Pty Ltd [1977] VR 65 at 70 and Australasian Performing Rights Association v Grebo Trading Co Pty Ltd (1978) 23 ACTR 30 Real Estate Institute of NSW v Wood (1923) 23 SR (NSW) 349 University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601 University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601 Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479
COUNSEL:	Mr L Bowden for the plaintiff Defendant in person
SOLICITORS:	QBM lawyers for the plaintiff