The Federal Court found that a blogger had been served with court documents when he was emailed originating process by the applicants in a trade mark infringement case.
Take control of your SAP testing with UiPath Test Suite
"...Court orders service by email..."
1. 12/22/11 Blake Dawson - IP @ Blake Dawson
IP @ Blake Dawson
15 December 2011
You ve been served! Court orders service by email in SPEEDO trade
mark case
In brief
The Federal Court found that a blogger had been served with court documents when he was
emailed originating process by the applicants in a trade mark infringement case.
Speedo Holdings B.V. E ans [2011] FCA 1089
On 21 September 2011, the Federal Court ordered that a blogger known as “aussiespeedoguy” had been
served with court documents when he was emailed originating process by the applicants who were
representing the SPEEDO brand in a trade mark infringement case.
The respondent, Dave Evans, was responsible for a number of allegedly “offensive” and “pornographic”
websites that featured people wearing SPEEDO swimwear and domain names containing the SPEEDO
trade mark. While the applicants – the owner of the various registered SPEEDO trade marks, Speedo
Holdings B.V., and the distributor and seller of Speedo swimwear, Speedo International Limited –
identified Mr Evans as the websites contact, they were unable to determine his residential/postal
address.
After receiving a response to an email sent to the respondent, the applicants solicitor sent Mr Evans a
copy of the filed Originating Application and Statement of Claim commencing the trade mark
infringement proceedings. In interlocutory proceedings, the applicants sought orders for deemed and
substituted service, as under Rule 10.01 of the Fede al Co R le 2011 (FCR), the documents had not
been served personally.
Justice Flick found that the originating process had been emailed to a valid address, that the respondent
had confirmed receipt of those documents and that the applicants attempts to secure his residential
address for service had been unsuccessful. His Honour therefore held that it was not practicable to serve
the respondent personally and that the originating process had been brought to the respondent s
attention for the purposes of Rules 10.23 and 10.24 of the FCR.
Orders were made that the originating process was deemed to have been served on the respondent
under Rule 10.23 of the FCR and that service on the respondent of any further documents in the
proceedings could be similarly effected by email under Rule 10.24 of the FCR, until such time as the
respondent s residential/postal address was provided.
Last month, the Federal Court granted default judgment to the applicants and ordered that the
respondent:
www.blakedawson.com/Templates/Publications/x_article_content_page.as 1/2