FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unilever Aust Ltd v Karounos [2001] FCA 1132

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED v GEORGE KAROUNOS and SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

NG 732 OF 1998

HILL J

17 AUGUST 2001

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828) APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT
AND:	GEORGE KAROUNOS SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT
JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

1. In paragraph 64 line 4, the reference to s 95(4)(b) should be a reference to s 92(4)(b).

I certify that this is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated: 30 October 2001

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unilever Australia Limited v Karounos [2001] FCA 1132

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED v GEORGE KAROUNOS and SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

NG 732 OF 1998

HILL J

17 AUGUST 2001 (Corrigendum 29 May 2002)

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828)

APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

GEORGE KAROUNOS

SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2001 (Corrigendum 29 May 2002)
PLACE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 In paragraph 12 the first part of the first sentence of the quote from s 41(5) Note 2 should read: “Use of a trade mark by a predecessor in title of an applicant and an authorised use” and not “Use of a trade mark by a predecessor in title of an applicant and anauthorised use”. Also in paragraph 12 the first part of the first sentence of the quote from s 41(6) Note 2 should read “Use of a trade mark by a predecessor in title of an applicant and an authorised use” and not “Use of a trade mark by a predecessor in title of an applicant and anuthorised use”.

2 The second sentence in paragraph 22 should end with the words “when written in stylised form” not “when written in stytlised form”.

3 Paragraph 42 should read “This statement was approved by Kitto J in Clark Equipment at 513-4 and has been applied in this Court repeatedly; see, for example, TGI Fridays Australia Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc (2000) 48 IPR 513 at 521” and not “This statement was approved by Kitto J in Clark Equipment at 513-4 and has been applied in this Court repeatably; see, for example, Big Country Developments Pty Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc (2000) 48 IPR 513 at 521.”.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated: 29 May 2002

Top