FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pakula Tackle Australia Pty Ltd v Zacatak Lures Australia Pty Limited
[2009] FCA 71
CORRIGENDUM
PAKULA TACKLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 109 280 275 v ZACATAK LURES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 124 549 122, MARIO ZACAROPOULOS and JACQUELINE ZACAROPOLOUS
QUD424 of 2008
LOGAN J
11 FEBRUARY 2009 (corrigendum dated 3 march 2009)
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
QUD424 of 2008 |
|
PAKULA TACKLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 109 280 275 Applicant
|
|
|
AND: |
ZACATAK LURES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 124 549 122 First Respondent
MARIO ZACAROPOULOS Second Respondent
JACQUELINE ZACAROPOLOUS Third Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
LOGAN J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
11 FEBRUARY 2009 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
CORRIGENDUM
1 On page 16 of the Reasons for Judgment paragraph 41 after “595” insert “Kitto J stated”.
2 On page 16 of the Reasons for Judgment paragraph 42 in the second line “one self” should be one word, therefore the sentence should read “… but instead asks oneself whether, …”.
3 On page 17 paragraph 44 of the Reasons for Judgment should read “as in like fashion did Foster J in the Sebel case” not “as in like fashion as did Foster J in the Sebel’s case”.
4 On page 17 paragraph 44 of the Reasons for Judgment should read “this trade mark had about it distinguishing features” not “this trade mark had a distinguishing features”.
5 On page 22 of the Reasons for Judgment paragraph 62 the words “in their individual capacities” should be moved to after “business” and it should read “themselves engaged in business in their individual capacities,”.
6 On page 24 paragraph 69 of the Reasons for Judgment should read “It is distinct even though it seems that its” not “It is distinct even though is seems that its”.
|
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan. |
Associate:
Dated: 3 March 2009
