Anthony Messina represented the Respondents, instructed by Gilchrist Connell.
This case concerns an application by the applicant seeking the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from using and operating certain platforms containing plans and 3D images of portable home products that allegedly infringe the applicant’s copyright. The applicant relied of three causes of action in support of its claim for an interlocutory injunction: infringement of copyright, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties. The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
