Skip to content

IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

  • Copyright
  • Designs
  • Patents
  • Trade marks
  • Enforcement
  • IP generally
  • Internet
  • Trade
  • Technology
  • Because I felt like it

Tag: account of profits

Confidentiality, Competitors And The Court

war / 11 May 201610 May 2016 / Designs, Enforcement

The battle between Gram Engineering and Bluescope is continuing: this time Jagot J has ruled that Gram’s managing director (and sole shareholder), Mr Mann, may have access to financial information Bluescope has been required to make available.

Following the Full Court’s ruling that Gram’s design for its steel fencing panel was valid and Bluescope had infringed that design, Bluescope has been required to provide an affidavt disclosing its sales, revenues and costs so that Gram can make an informed election whether to seek damages or an account of profits. Bluescope claimed confidentiality in the information and Gram applied for permission to disclose the information to Mr Mann so that Gram could make an informed decision.

Jagot J was not at all inclined to accept that most of the information was confidential in the sense of requiring stringent protection: it related to the period 2005 – 2010 and was largely stale. However, some more recent information relating to the period 2013 – 2015 could be fairly regarded as sufficiently current and confidential to warrant protection.

However, confidentiality alone is not enough to resist production. Where the information is relevant, a balancing exercise is involved.

Jagot J accespted that the relationship of the proposed disclosees to the discloser’s trade competitor was highly relevant, especially where the disclosees owed fiduciary obligations to the trade competitor (and so putting them potentially in a position of conflict of interest).

Here, however and unlike the cases Bluescope relied on,[1] Gram was not a large company with a large (executive) staff. Mr Mann was the managing director and sole shareholder. It was “not difficult to infer that he was [Gram’s] controlling mind.” He was the person who would have to make the decision whether to proceed with a claim for damages or an account and he could not make that decision without access to the relevant infromation.

Gram Engineering Pty Limited v BlueScope Steel Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 452


  1. Bluescope had relied on Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 1165 and Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v Specsavers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 793.  ?

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Leave a Comment on Confidentiality, Competitors And The Court/ account of profits,competitors,Confidentiality,damages,Designs,discovery,remedies

Pages

  • About
  • Comments policy
  • Contact me
  • Posts before 15 August 2008
  • Subscribing to email notifications

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets
January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Dec    

Categories

  • Antitrust
  • Because I felt like it
  • Confidential Information
  • Copyright
  • Designs
  • Domain names
  • Enforcement
  • Franchising
  • Internet
  • IP generally
  • IT
  • Patents
  • PBR
  • Semiconductor chips
  • Technology
  • Trade
  • Trade marks
  • Trade Practices

Tags

ACIP antitrust appeal Apple Assignment Australia authorisation business method consultation Copyright damages Design Designs EU Google iiNet infringement injunction Internet inventive step IP IP Australia isp keywords licence manner of manufacture non-use opposition ownership parallel imports passing off Patent patentable subject matter Patents Productivity Commission raising the bar review subject matter Telstra Trade mark Trade marks UK USA use as a trade mark WIPO

Recent Posts

  • News media “use” right
  • More on the Designs ACIP bill
  • Designs Amendment (Advisory Council On Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020
  • A case about works of artistic craftsmanship
  • Patents get exhausted in Australia

Recent Comments

  • ESCO’s patent did not make a composite promise and so is not invalid afterall | Australian Law Blogs on ESCO’s patent did not make a composite promise and so is not invalid afterall
  • Amsterdam in July? | Australian Law Blogs on Amsterdam in July?
  • The Hague Agreement: a cost benefit analysis | Australian Law Blogs on The Hague Agreement: a cost benefit analysis
  • Bohemia Crystal shattered | Australian Law Blogs on Bohemia Crystal shattered
  • Enforcing foreign judgments – consultations | Australian Law Blogs on Enforcing foreign judgments – consultations

Archives

  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Bhari
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: