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
-
s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?
Find out how the case of Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 highlights the potential risk of trademark infringements to businesses. Read more to discover the case background, takeaways, and tips to protect your business.
-
Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue
This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.
-
Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted
Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?
-
Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues
An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question. Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work. The rights that apply to adaptions…
-
Innocent copyright infringement explained
This article examines the legal defence of “innocent infringement” in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Find out what evidence is needed to prove both the subjective and objective elements of this defence, and learn the key takeaways to consider when using it in copyright disputes.
-
Know-how vs confidential information
Understand the difference between “know-how” and confidential information when it comes to employer-employee relationships. Find out how to protect confidential trade secrets and use broad contractual terms to ensure protection. Click through to get the full details.
-
Computer code libraries and copyright ownership
The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.
-
Compilations from the public domain – confidential or not?
The Court of Appeal in Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 180 had to re-examine the test for confidential information. It found that for information to be protected, it must have the necessary attributes of confidentiality and must be the product of skill and ingenuity of the human brain.
