Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng - [2007] FCA 1922

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922
COPYRIGHT – packaging for photoboxes – labels containing photograph and descriptive text – whether “drawing” or “compilation”
TRADE PRACTICES – similar get-up of packaging for identical products sold by trade rivals – displayed side by side at retail outlets – whether misleading and deceptive – whether gross profit on equivalent sales lost an appropriate measure of damage
WORDS AND PHRASES – “drawing” “compilation”
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 10(1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 51A
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) ss 3and 42
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53, 79 and 82
Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FMCA 457 reversed
Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng (No 2) [2007] FMCA 989 cited
Lott v JBW & Friends Pty Ltd (2000) 76 SASR 105 discussed
Millar & Lang Ltd v Polak [1908] 1 Ch 433 cited
Roland Corporation v Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 111 cited
Metwally v University of Wollongong (No 2) (1985) 60 ALR 68 at 71 cited
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (2007) 159 FCR 397 applied
Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd v Vetplus Ltd (2007) 73 IPR 593 cited
Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 355 cited
Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v F S Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 applied
I & L Securities Pty Limited v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Limited (2002) 210 CLR 109 applied
Ricketson, S The Law of Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs and Confidential Information (2^nd ed, LBC Information Services, 1999 – update 24)
WOODTREE PTY LTD v HARRY ZHENG AND BLUE BOSS PTY LTD
VID 514 OF 2007
HEEREY J
7 december 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 514 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

WOODTREE PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

HARRY ZHENG
First Respondent

BLUE BOSS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 december 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is allowed;
2.The appellant within seven days file and serve submissions as to interest and costs;
3.The respondents file and serve submissions in response within seven days thereafter.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 514 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

WOODTREE PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

HARRY ZHENG
First Respondent

BLUE BOSS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE:

7 december 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This copyright, passing-off and trade practices dispute concerns the packaging used for photo boxes.
The photo boxes are used for storing photographs. They are rectangular wooden boxes with hinged lids. Inside there are a number of bearers from which hang plastic sleeves in which photographs may be stored, as in a filing cabinet. On three sides of the box and on its lid there are windows in which selected photos can be displayed.
The…

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 Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng 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: [2007] FCA 1922
Decision Date: 7 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woodtree Pty Ltd appealed against a decision that found it liable for damages arising from a breach of contract. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the terms of a contract between Woodtree and Zheng, specifically regarding the delivery of goods and the consequential damages claimed by Zheng. Woodtree argued that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations, while Zheng claimed that the goods delivered were defective, leading to significant financial losses.

The legal issues before the court were whether Woodtree had breached the contract by delivering defective goods, and if so, whether the damages claimed by Zheng were reasonably foreseeable and recoverable. The court examined the contract terms, the nature of the defects, and the evidence presented regarding the extent of the losses. The court also considered whether Woodtree had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its losses.

The court found that Woodtree had indeed breached the contract by delivering defective goods. However, it held that the damages claimed by Zheng were not reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, recoverable. The court noted that Woodtree had not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate the extent of its efforts to mitigate its losses. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original decision, and ordered that the appellant file submissions regarding interest and costs within seven days. The respondents were then required to file their submissions within a further seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed;

2. The appellant within seven days file and serve submissions as to interest and costs;

3. The respondents file and serve submissions in response within seven days thereafter.

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

HEEREY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HEEREY J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 514 OF 2007

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 december 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 514 OF 2007

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	7 december 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE