The Australian sellers of dancing poles Vertical Leisure Ltd and Dance4Me Pty Ltd (Vertical Leisure) have been awarded AU$394,800 in damages, after a competitor Skyrunner Pty Ltd (Skyrunner) sold of inferior copies of dancing poles using promotional materials of the brand “X-Pole”.
The decision of Driver J in the Federal Circuit Court in Vertical Leisure Limited v Skyrunner Pty Ltd[1] provides useful guidance for the calculation of damages where there have been multiple legislative breaches of intellectual property rights.
Vertical Leisure demonstrated that the Respondent had:
- infringed its copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);
- infringed its trade mark pursuant to section 120 of the Trade Mark Act 1995 (Cth) (Trade Mark Act);
- engaged in passing off; and
- engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct pursuant to schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Driver J found the counterfeit poles had caused consumer confusion and damaged the reputation of the X-Pole brand. In the calculation of damages the Court focused on the breaches to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) in in particular compensatory damages and additional damages pursuant to s115(4) of the Copyright Act.
Compensatory damages
Compensatory damages were awarded to Vertical Leisure for:
Loss of profit
Vertical Leisure was awarded damages on the basis it had lost sales from the infringement of its intellectual property under section 115(2) of the Copyright Act. While there was some difficulty in quantifying the loss due to inaccurate sales records, the Court estimated the damage at AU$44,800.
Loss of reputation
The Court found the inferior and dangerous copies of the poles had caused substantial damage to the X-Pole brand and the goodwill generated in the marketplace. The Court awarded AU$50,000 on this basis.
Additional damages
Pursuant to section 115(4) of the Copyright Act, additional damages can be awarded based on:
- the flagrancy of the infringement;
- the need to deter similar infringements of copyright;
- the conduct of the defendant after the act constituting the infringement or, if relevant, after the defendant was informed that the defendant had allegedly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright;
- whether the infringement involved the conversion of a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form;
- any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement; and
- all other relevant matters.
Driver J awarded $300,000 under section 115(4) stating that the award of damages be made to mark the ‘Court’s recognition of the opprobrium attached to the defendant’s conduct’. The Court found Skyrunner’s actions were both flagrant and deliberate. The breach of copyright included producing exact copies of promotional materials such as DVD and images. There was also evidence that Skyrunner had been put on notice of the infringement with Vertical Leisure on several occasions. The Court also considered the importance of deterrence when making the award.
It was said by Driver J in acknowledging what has become ‘common parlance’ that the Applicants had accepted that there was to be no “double dipping” as Vertical Leisure had successfully obtained damages pursuant to the breaches of the Copyright Act there was no entitlement to obtain damages for the same conduct under the Trade Marks Act.
Calculation of additional damages
The Court found that loss of damages under section 115(2) has no bearing on the award of additional damages awarded under section 115(4). Damages under section 115(4) were punitive and could be awarded even if there was only nominal damage to the plaintiff.
The Court stated it was open to them to increase an award of additional damages if the lack of co-operation of the Respondent made it probable that the volume of sales had been underestimated.
The decision in Vertical Leisure Limited v Skyrunner Pty Ltd[2] should serve as a deterrent to those in the digital age that sell goods online at the expense of others by using the copyright that subsists in digital images. The message is clear – ignore a letter of demand at your peril!
Links and further references
Legislation
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases
Facton Ltd v Rifai Fashions Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 9
Eagle Rock Entertainment Ltd v Caisley [2005] FCA 1238
Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] FCA 1589
Vertical Leisure Limited & Anor v Skyrunner Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] FCCA 2033
Further information
If you need assistance in either defending a breach of copyright or commencing proceedings for breach of copyright, please contact us for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstance.
[1] [2014] FCCA 2033.
[2] [2014] FCCA 2033.
Related insights about breach of copyright
-
Understanding contributory liability for patent infringement
In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission. The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.
-
Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises
The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…
-
Misuse of confidential information in source code
In Australia, computer code can amount to confidential information as well as being subject to copyright protection. In some cases the two things overlap as was the case in decision of the Court in Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 281; [2010] FCAFC 21.
-
Federal Court requirements for electronic discovery and metadata
Electronic discovery in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) is nothing new. From July 2014, the FCA began implementing the Court’s electronic court file (ECF) across its Australian registries. This enabled the Court to embrace the use of technology in proceedings, including the use of electronic discovery, eLodgement, eTrials, eCourtroom, and video conferences.
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
-
“User principle” damages for breach of copyright
The usual position in intellectual property infringement matters is that the successful applicant can elect between an account of profits or damages. However, what if the applicant has not suffered any direct loss as a result of the actions of the respondent that is held to have infringed its copyright?
-
Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright infringement lawsuit
This article examines the legal test for copyright infringement in Australia, using Ed Sheeran’s Court case in the UK as an example. Find out how the Courts determine when a song is a copy of another and what the implications are for musicians.
-
Use of competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
-
Hermès sues artist over NFTs of Birkin bags
Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.
