Enviro Pak Pty Ltd v New Horticulture Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 306 (2 April 2013)
Enviro Pak Pty Ltd v New Horticulture Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 624 (25 June 2013)
It is not common for the Federal Court of Australia to allow a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer. Nor is it common for the court to cede authority to an administrative decision-maker. So when a judge of the Federal Court does both in the course of the same litigation, there is no avoiding the fact that the court is doing the beneficiary of these decisions a significant favour.
The dispute between Enviro Pak Pty Ltd and New Horticulture Pty Ltd (trading as Green Pack, which is how I shall refer to the company) relates to Australian registered design no. 304960, owned by Enviro Pak. The registration protects the design of a corrugated paper coffee cup, which Enviro Pak claims to be unique in that the corrugations are aligned vertically, which in turn requires that the width of the corrugations increases from the bottom to the top of the cup (since the circumference of the base of the cup is smaller that that of the lip). Notwithstanding this functional aspect of the design, it is important to keep in mind that a registered design protects only the visual appearance of the coffee cup, and not its functionality or associated benefits.
Enviro Pak is suing Green Pack, and its sole director and shareholder, for alleged infringement of the registered design. Initially, Green Pack had legal representation, however the financial circumstances of the company appear to have resulted in termination of this representation in February 2013. In the meantime, two applications challenging the validity of the registered design had been filed with the Designs Office at IP Australia.
While an individual (i.e. a ‘natural person’) is entitled to represent him- or herself in court, a corporation normally is not, and must be represented by a qualified legal practitioner. Furthermore, the Designs Act 2003 is structured such that when proceedings are on-foot both in court, and at IP Australia, in relation to the same registered design, the Registrar of Designs is generally unable to proceed without permission from the court. (The Patents Act 1990, incidentally, is similarly structured.)
This state of affairs creates potential difficulties for a party with financial limitations, once a court action has commenced. In this case, however, the court has made exceptions for Green Pack.
Enviro Pak Pty Ltd v New Horticulture Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 624 (25 June 2013)
It is not common for the Federal Court of Australia to allow a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer. Nor is it common for the court to cede authority to an administrative decision-maker. So when a judge of the Federal Court does both in the course of the same litigation, there is no avoiding the fact that the court is doing the beneficiary of these decisions a significant favour.The dispute between Enviro Pak Pty Ltd and New Horticulture Pty Ltd (trading as Green Pack, which is how I shall refer to the company) relates to Australian registered design no. 304960, owned by Enviro Pak. The registration protects the design of a corrugated paper coffee cup, which Enviro Pak claims to be unique in that the corrugations are aligned vertically, which in turn requires that the width of the corrugations increases from the bottom to the top of the cup (since the circumference of the base of the cup is smaller that that of the lip). Notwithstanding this functional aspect of the design, it is important to keep in mind that a registered design protects only the visual appearance of the coffee cup, and not its functionality or associated benefits.
Enviro Pak is suing Green Pack, and its sole director and shareholder, for alleged infringement of the registered design. Initially, Green Pack had legal representation, however the financial circumstances of the company appear to have resulted in termination of this representation in February 2013. In the meantime, two applications challenging the validity of the registered design had been filed with the Designs Office at IP Australia.
While an individual (i.e. a ‘natural person’) is entitled to represent him- or herself in court, a corporation normally is not, and must be represented by a qualified legal practitioner. Furthermore, the Designs Act 2003 is structured such that when proceedings are on-foot both in court, and at IP Australia, in relation to the same registered design, the Registrar of Designs is generally unable to proceed without permission from the court. (The Patents Act 1990, incidentally, is similarly structured.)
This state of affairs creates potential difficulties for a party with financial limitations, once a court action has commenced. In this case, however, the court has made exceptions for Green Pack.
