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
-
Calculating account of profits – trade mark infringement
This article examines the calculation of damages when an account of profits is awarded as a remedy for trade mark infringement. It covers the general principle, the proportionality rule, and the deduction of overhead costs.
-
Non-fungible tokens – a new way to hold IP?
Discover the rising phenomenon of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and how they can help protect your Intellectual Property (IP). Learn how NFTs works, its benefits for rights holders, and potential legal issues. Get the full picture here.
-
Unjustified trade mark infringement threats
Comprehensive list of Australian Court decisions and related legislation covering corporate, technology, intellectual property, commercial, employment, negligence, confidentiality, copyright, moral rights, user generated content, click wrap/browse wrap, trademarks, torts and social media law.
-
What exactly are moral rights?
This article provides an overview of moral rights in Australia, including the three moral rights available to authors and performers, the works protected by them, their retrospective application, when they may be infringed, and the case of Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (Meskenas). Helping readers understand the implications of moral rights…
-
How much copying leads to copyright infringement?
This article outlines the definition of Literary Works, the subsistence of copyright in such works, and the test for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). It also provides an overview of the four major characteristics to consider when determining if copying is substantial.
-
What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?
The Federal Government has announced a ‘patent box’ tax regime to boost Australian biotech and medtech innovators with a $206 million corporate tax cut. Learn more about the scope, qualifications and prerequisites for patenting an invention.
-
Accessory liability and copyright infringement
Manufacturers and service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement, but when? This article examines the legal implications of the Sea Shepherd (UK) v Fish & Fish Ltd [2015] UKSC 10 case and accessory liability.
-
Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages
Court found Respondent infringed copyright of Daniel “Dee” Snider’s works, awarding $1.5M for flagrant, contumelious infringements. It was found as not fair and not satirical/parodical.
-
Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1
Employers in Australia must be aware of potential costs involved when defending an unfair dismissal claim at the Fair Work Commission. Despite success, employers rarely get the option to recover costs from the complainant employee.
