The involves Philip Morris Incorporated and Philip Morris Ltd, who sued Adam P. Brown Mall Fashions Pty, Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. Philip Morris Ltd is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Philip Morris Incorporated. It is located in Australia and is a licensed user of the goods produced by the central company. Philip Morris Incorporated, in its turn, is located in the U.S. It produces cigarettes and is the owner of such marks as Marlboro and the Marlboro label. It also deals with mens and boys dressing gowns, PJs, and other clothes. Philip Morris Ltd situated in Australia is a licensed user of two trademarks. It is the proprietor under the name The Marlboro Company; the trade name Marlboro has become identified within the public. Adam P. Brown Mall Fashions Ltd. is sued by plaintiffs claiming that the defendant used labels of trademarks illegally. This company had been manufacturing wearing apparels with the Marlboro label. The defendant manufactured clothing and attached labels to its items without the approval of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant assured customers and the public that all manufactured products are sponsored by the original companies. Adam p. Brown Mall Fashions Ltd. also used the Marlborough label and performed on the rights of the proprietor of the Philip Morris Ltd. illegally. Plaintiffs claimed a relief restraining the defendant to spread the goods under the label of the original company. In its defense, the defendant stated that the Federal Court did not have jurisdictions on restriction as it is beyond the legislative competence of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The second case involves the United States Surgical Corporation (the applicant), Hospital Products International Pty. Limited (the first respondent), Alan Blackman (the second respondent), and other respondents, claiming to restrain injunctions and damages for breaches of the provisions of Pt V of the Act. The applicant is situated in the U.S. The first is from New South Wales. The second and third respondents are involved into the trade and commerce in Australia. The applicant invents designs and produces medical tools, which allow making operations without a needle and a thread. The applicant has become a widespread distributor of his goods in Australia. The second respondent was employed by the applicant for nine months in 1973. In 1978, the second respondent was appointed by the applicant to act on the rights of the Australian distributor. The first respondent was substituted for the second respondent as the authorized distributor of the applicants products and services in Australia. The same relationship was between the applicant and the second respondent. Respondents were provided with the confidential information. The applicant claimed that the first respondent started to produce the same products insuring the public that they are of the same quality as the applicants original products. The applicant claimed that the trade was deceptive and the competition was unfair. The claim of the applicant was to restrain passing of products and business in general belonging to the respondent. The case also evoked the question about courts jurisdiction in restraining measures.
Two cases have different aspects. However, it is convenient to deal with conclusions on both cases. Each case attracts the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, which is driven from the Act. Parts IV and V create the duties and obligations, and part VI, in its turn, provides enumeration of the available remedies in case of the contravention of any provisions of the mentioned parts. The first case is not related to the issues of alleged contraventions of ss.52 and ss. 53 of the Trade Practices Act. The second one also circles around the same subject. Non-federal questions raised in the statement of claim are also not related to the mentioned issues. In conclusion, it is obvious that there are constitutional limits of the Parliaments power. It means that s.32 can only extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in order to include matters of the federal jurisdiction. In particular cases, claims are associated with the matters within a courts jurisdiction. That is the reason why the section has no operation in the first and the second case. The second case will also depend on whether the claim arises under the Copyright Act of the 1968. It should be also associated with a matter arising under the Trade Practices Act. However, this outcome may not be the best decision for litigants, who are looking for convenience and clarity in the resolution of the conflicts.
About the author
Rico Shenk specializes in writing academic papers on educational topics. He is a writer at nursing essay writing service https://elitewritings.com/nursing-writing-services.html