Taypar Pty Ltd v Santic

Case [1989] FCA 832

Re: TAYPAR PTY LTD
And: BENKO SANTIC
No. QLD G293 of 1988
FED No. 832
Copyright

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Spender J.(1)
CATCHWORDS

Copyright - infringement - qualitative assessment of similarities - whether appropriation of idea or concept or of expression of that concept.

Copyright - assignment - house plans and display home - designer "relinquishing" copyright "to" builder for a fee - whether assignment effected - whether any necessary form.

Copyright - ownership - whether assignee entitled to sue for infringements committed prior to assignment.

Copyright - defences - design applied industrially - whether house "an article".

Copyright Act 1968 ss. 10, 31, 32, 74, 77, 115 and 196.

Copyright Regulations reg. 17

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 21:12:1989

Counsel for applicant: Mr M. Hinson
instructed by: Davoren Associates, Solicitors

Counsel for respondent: Mr M. Amerena
instructed by: English & Company, Solicitors

ORDER

The application be dismissed, with costs.

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

JUDGE1

This is an application for infringement of copyright. Both the ownership of the copyright and infringement are in issue.

  1. The applicant, Taypar Pty Ltd ("Taypar"), is a builder, carrying on business under the business name Jupiter Homes. The respondent is also a builder.

  2. Taypar claims to be the owner of the copyright in a plan labelled "Drawing 87.404", and described as "Jupiter Homes Display Home at Lot 53 Drayton Terrace, Mermaid Waters", a house plan entitled "Reflections", and a building constructed at Lot 53 Drayton Terrace, Mermaid Waters. The claim of the applicant, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, is that the respondent has infringed its copyright in each of the above plans and building by, without the licence or authority of the applicant:-

"reproducing or authorising the reproduction of the said work in a material form in a plan entitled 'Proposed residence Lot 405 Pebble Beach Drive Runaway Islands, for Mr. B. Santic'"

and by:-

"reproducing or authorising the reproduction of the said work in a material form by the construction of a building at Lot 405, Pebble Beach Drive, Runaway Islands in the State of Queensland."

  1. The Statement of Claim alleges that the infringements were flagrant in that the respondent was aware, or alternatively had reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the acts pleaded in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 constituted an infringement of the applicant's copyright. This assertion, which directs attention to one of the relevant considerations in the award of additional damages under s. 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968, is traversed in the defence.

  2. The application claimed, inter alia, injunctive relief and damages for infringement, but the claim for injunctive relief was not pursued at the hearing.

  3. The author of the drawing of the house plan in which the applicant claims copyright was a Mr. Robin Butt of the firm Hancox Butt, and the building at Lot 53 Drayton Terrace is a reproduction in a material form of the drawing and home…

Continue reading Taypar Pty Ltd v Santic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 832
Case
[1989] FCA 832
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taypar Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Santic for copyright infringement. Taypar, the owner of a copyrighted architectural design, alleged that Santic's building design infringed upon their copyright by appropriating the expression of the architectural concept. Santic denied the allegations and argued that the similarities between the designs were coincidental and did not constitute infringement. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine whether Santic's design appropriated the expression of Taypar's architectural concept or merely shared a similar idea.

The court was required to assess the extent to which Santic's design copied the expression of Taypar's concept. This involved a qualitative assessment of the similarities between the two designs, including an examination of the specific elements and features that were allegedly copied. The court also had to consider whether the similarities were due to the appropriation of the idea or concept itself, or merely the expression of that concept. The court needed to determine whether the similarities were substantial and whether they went beyond what was necessary to express the same idea or concept.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and conducted a detailed analysis of the designs in question. The court found that the similarities between the designs were not substantial enough to constitute copyright infringement. The court held that the similarities were due to the appropriation of the underlying idea or concept, rather than the expression of that concept. As a result, the court dismissed Taypar's application and ordered that Santic be awarded costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed, with costs.

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

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.