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: self-represented

Accounting for profits: 2 reminders

war / 2 September 201328 August 2013 / Trade marks

Even though (or perhaps because) the trade mark infringer was self-represented at trial, this short case includes two important cautions that it is as well to keep in mind.

Mr King ran some boxing events with some training and the like under the name “White Collar Boxing”. The problem was that Delta Metallics already owned the trade mark for “White Collar Boxing” in respect of those services. Delta Metallics sued and eventually obtained judgment on the liability questions by default. Mr King then provided an affidavit declaring that he made some $12,253 in profits. Delta Metallics elected to pursue an account of profits and the trial judge ultimately awarded it that sum.

Without going into all the procedural aspects of the appeal: the cautionary points:

(1) If you want to argue that you shouldn’t have to account for the profits because you are an innoncent infringer, you need to get that innocence established at the liability stage of the proceeding. (Unless you make special provision for it somehow), you won’t get the chance when quantum is being determined.

(2) If you are an infringer (and don’t make out the innocence defence), you are required to account only for those profits made by reason of the infringing conduct.[1] As a result, you may not be liable to account for all the profits you made if you can satisfy the Court that some of the profits did not derive from the use of the trade mark. Mr King couldn’t rely on this on the appeal because he had not tried to argue it at the trial (see [50]-[54]).

King v Delta Metallics Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 93 (North, Cowdroy and McKerracher JJ)

Lid dip: Siobhan Ryan


  1. Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25  ?

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 Accounting for profits: 2 reminders/ account,boxing,innocent infringer,profits,remedies,self-represented,split trial,Trade marks

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: