PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunction – applicant entered into agreements with first and fifth respondents for sale of business, issue of preference shares to fifth respondent, grant of security over assets of business, and company and personal guarantees – applicant defaulted on obligation to make payments to fifth respondent – applicant alleges respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct contrary to ss 18 and 21 of Australian Consumer Law – applicant alleges respondent misrepresented or concealed condition of business assets – applicant seeks to restrain first and fifth respondents from exercising contractual rights arising from applicant’s default pending determination of claims – interlocutory injunctions granted preventing first and fifth respondents from exercising certain rights
Related cases
-
The Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2024] FCA 1455
TORT – trespass – injurious falsehood – applicant seeks permanent injunctive relief to restrain respondent from publishing video images obtained as a result of trespasses – where applicant operates a commercial abattoir – where respondent is an animal rights organisation – where relevant video images portray scenes from within abattoir – where respondent made initial…
-
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1277
TRADE MARKS — shape marks – where the first applicant is the registered owner of a trade mark constituted by the shape of a cylindrical container with a stopper in Class 30 over coffee and instant coffee (the KDE shape mark) – where the respondent (Cantarella) released a 400-gram instant coffee product under its brand…
-
Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd v Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 139
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – where, by its use of trade mark “HOUSE BED & BATH” (appellant’s mark) in relation to soft homewares in a market in which respondent’s trade mark “BED BATH ‘N’ TABLE” (respondent’s mark) has a significant reputation, appellant found to have contravened ss 18(1) and 29(1)(g) and (h)…
