Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584;

Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584; - FCA 1992 case summary — Zoe

[54]

"20. (1) The EL rights in an eligible layout are not infringed

by a person who commercially exploits, or authorises the

commercial exploitation of, the layout in Australia if, at the

time when the person acquired the layout, the copy of the layout

or the integrated circuit made in accordance with the layout, as

the case may be, the person did not know, and could not reasonably

be expected to have known, that EL rights subsisted in the layout.

(2) Where a person referred to in subsection (1) becomes aware,

or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, that EL

rights subsist in the layout, that subsection ceases to apply to

any subsequent commercial exploitation of the layout, unless the

person pays to the owner or exclusive licensee of those rights

such equitable remuneration as is agreed, or as is determined by a

method agreed, between the person and the owner or exclusive

licensee or, in default of agreement, as is determined by the

Federal Court of Australia on application made by either of them."

Since 21 December 1990, s20 has provided as follows:

"20. (1) The EL rights in an eligible layout are not infringed

by a person who commercially exploits, or authorises the

commercial exploitation of, an unauthorised integrated circuit in

Australia, being a circuit made in accordance with the layout, if,

at the time when the person acquired the circuit, the person did

not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that

the circuit was unauthorised.

(2) Where a person referred to in subsection (1) becomes aware,

or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, that the

integrated circuit is unauthorised, that subsection ceases to

apply to any subsequent commercial exploitation of the circuit,

unless the person pays to the owner or exclusive licensee of the

EL rights in the layout such equitable remuneration as is agreed,

or as is determined by a method agreed, between the person and the

owner or exclusive licensee or, in default of agreement, as is

determined by the Federal Court of Australia on application made

by either of them.

(3) In this section:

"unauthorised", in relation to an integrated circuit made in

accordance with an eligible layout, means made without the licence

of the owner of the EL rights in the layout."

[115]

"The Circuits Layout Bill 1988 was introduced into Parliament on 3

November 1988 in anticipation of the holding of a diplomatic

conference in Washington held in May 1989 which adopted, on 26 May

1989, the Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of Integrated

Circuits drafted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

That treaty bound contracting States to secure intellectual

property protection throughout their territory in respect of

'layout-designs (topographies)'. Australia has not yet signed

the Treaty.

The commercial background to the adoption of the Layout Act is to

be found in the Second Reading Speech of the then

Attorney-General, the Honourable Mr Lionel Bowen, to the Copyright

Amendment Bill 1988 which was introduced at the same time

(Hansard, 3 November 1988 p 2393). The Attorney-General noted

that the Australian computer chip industry was small but

nevertheless important and growing. Australian computer chips

were used in a number of items including bionic ears, heart

pacemakers and the conversion of sunlight to power. Australian

specialised computer chips had found valuable overseas markets.

On the other hand, Australia imported most of its chips, either

inside consumer products or for installation in products actually

made in Australia.

The different commercial interests of Australia are reflected in

the two strands of thought which run through the legislation. The

first gives what the Attorney-General (Hansard at 2399) referred

to as 'sui generis, copyright-style, protection'. That

protection ensures (sic) for a period of ten years after the

calendar year in which the circuit layout was first commercially

exploited, but if that commercial exploitation does not take place

within ten calendar years after the calendar year in which the

layout was made, the protection comes to an end at the end of the

period of ten calendar years after the calendar year in which the

layout was made: see definition of 'protection period' in s.5.

As the Attorney-General observed in the Second Reading Speech, a

consequence of reforms both to the copyright law and the design

law, following upon the Designs Law Review Committee Report of

1973, was that neither copyright law nor design law provided

suitable protection to designers of computer chips. There was a

necessity, therefore, for the question of appropriate protection

to be separately addressed. This protection is granted in the Act

to the owner of the 'EL rights'."

[142]

"27. At all times material, (Nintendo) is and has been the

owner, within the meaning of section 16 of the Circuit

Layouts Act Cth 1989, of EL rights in an original

circuit layout ('the PPU layout').

PARTICULARS

(a) The PPU layout was made in Japan by Hiroo Ueda

and Hiromitsu Yagi under the terms of their

employment by and under a contract of service

with Ricoh Co. Ltd ('Ricoh') a company

incorporated according to the laws of Japan.

Ricoh subsequently assigned all its rights in

the layout to (Nintendo).

(b) The PPU layout is an original circuit layout in

accordance with which (Nintendo) has made an

integrated circuit in the form of a Read Only

Memory Chip ('the PPU chip') contained in the

video game machine produced and sold by

(Nintendo). A video game machine containing a

copy of the said chip has been marked with the

letter 'C' and can be inspected by prior

appointment at the offices of (Nintendo's)

solicitors.

28. Between a date unknown to (Nintendo) and the date of

issue of the Application herein, (Centronics Systems)

has, without the licence of (Nintendo), commercially

exploited the PPU layout in Australia.

PARTICULARS

Between a date unknown to (Nintendo) and the date of

issue of the Application herein, (Centronics Systems),

without the licence of (Nintendo), has imported, sold,

let for hire, distributed by way of trade and offered

or exposed for sale or hire, and imported for the

purpose of sale, letting for hire or other

distribution by way of trade, integrated circuits made

in accordance with the PPU layout. The said

integrated circuits are contained in a system of video

games known as the Spica system. The system contains,

inter alia, Read Only Memory chips made in accordance

with the PPU layout.

(Nintendo) is unable to supply further particulars of

infringement until discovery and interrogation.

29. (Centronics Systems) did the acts alleged in

paragraphs 27 and 28 herein in circumstances where it

knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that it was

not licensed by (Nintendo) to do so.

30. By the acts alleged in paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 hereof

(Centronics Systems) has infringed, and continues to

infringe, (Nintendo's) EL rights in the PPU layout,

within the meaning of section 19 of the Circuit

Layouts Act Cth 1989."

[158]

"3. In 1986 I went into partnership with the third

Respondent Tiberio Salice in a business known as

'Centronics' which imported computers and installed

and fitted security systems including computerised

alarm systems.

4. (Centronics Systems) was incorporated in 1987 to carry

on the existing business of Centronics however the

nature of the business changed as it began to import

television sets. Only Tiberio Salice, Fabrizio Latin

and I are active in the business of Centronics...

5. In July 1989 an unsolicited sample of twenty Spica

Entertainment Units was sent to (Centronics Systems)

by a company in Taipei, Taiwan, Keyman Electronics Co

Ltd ('Keyman') with which (Centronics Systems Pty.

Ltd.) had had prior dealings. Keyman was the

manufacturer of the Spica units which comprised a

computerised game console with a slot for a cartridge

to be inserted, a four-in-one games cartridge with

four games, Twin Bee, B-Wings, Mario Bros, Duck Hunt,

a hand operated gun and a finger operated joy stick.

6. I was aware of games made by ... Nintendo however I

was not aware that it had intellectual property claims

over any of the items making up the sample Spica

Entertainment Units. In fact I negotiated for three

months from about July 1989 with representatives from

Nintendo's distributor in Australia, Mattel Australia

Pty Ltd ('Mattel') with a view to their buying the

Spica unit. At no time during this period was any

complaint made to Centronics that there were

intellectual property problems.

7. Centronics imported a first consignment of one

thousand five hundred units of the Spica Entertainment

Units before Christmas in 1989. Only about one

hundred and fifty of these were sold at a retail price

of $199.00. Between 20 and 50 were stolen from

premises where Centronics had stored them at 83

Johnston Street, Fitzroy.

8. On 1st December 1989 I received a telephone call from

Raoul Bedford the Nintendo Product Manager for Mattel

complaining about intellectual property rights

belonging to Nintendo being infringed by the Spica

system. I immediately referred these enquiries by fax

to Keyman. I received a reply from Keyman dated 1st

December 1989 by fax..."

[160]

"RE: IW-701 GAME

Dear Maurice,

I would like to answer your question as follows:

POINT 1 GAME CARTRIDGES

I think I have told you before, some game cartridges are

designed by Nintendo. These cartridges will have copyright

problems. But, not every cartridge has that copyright

problem, because there are lots of software house in Japan,

they also design the software of cartridges.

For this point our solution are:

1. We don't offer any cartridge together with 1Q-701 game

machine. The end-user could buy the cartridges from

local market.

2. We have some other game cartridges which is designed

by a USA company named 'TENSEN' and compatible with

Nintendo. We could get the licence from them very

soon, but the price will be a little high, as we have

to pay the licence costs.

But another way is (just for your personal reference):

You could consider to set-up another sales channel to

sell the cartridges under table (but you know it is

illegal. Of course we could arrange the course for you.

POINT 2 NINTENDO TRADE MARK

When you take any advertisement, you only can specify your

machine is 'NINTENDO compatible', and please add a small

description: NINTENDO IS A REGISTER TRADE MARK OF NINTENDO

CO., LTD. It is similar with our advertisement of IBM

compatible computer. The best way is: You could check from

Trade Mark Office in your country what trademark was

registered by NINTENDO and yet should avoid these trade mark.

POINT 3 POWER ADAPTER

He could 100% confirm the adapter will have no any patent

right problem. As it is a very normal and standard adapter.

You can very easy to find such an adapter for Walk-man

radio/recorder, rechargeable battery of some electronic

equipment.

POINT 4 LIGHT GUN

For this item we also can absolutely confirm that it without

patent right problem. The tooling shade of light gun is

designed by ourselves and the 'INFRARED' principle is a

normal principle. If Nintendo say they own a patent right,

it means that all of remote control equipment like TV sets

etc. will against the law.

Dear Maurice, according to our experience of selling lots of

TV games to several countries, we find the Nintendo always

like to ask nothing for trouble. I hope you should have a

preparation in your mind, the Nintendo will keep on to ask

for trouble. But, every time they always conclude without

resell.

I hope the above explanation will be helpful for you.

Thanks and regards,

Danny Chen"

[167]

"Re: Mattel Pty. Ltd. and

Centronics Systems Pty. Limited

Spica Entertainment Unit

We have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with our

client and to examine both the Spica unit and the Nintendo

unit and on behalf of our client we respond to the four

statements in your letter as follows:-

1. Our client has available to it a large number of games

cartridges and we understand that the ones to which

you object are the games which our client sells as

Super Mario and Duck Hunt.

As far as the first of these is concerned we

understand that a game called Mario Brothers is

generic in this particular industry and is certainly

available on arcade machines and possibly from other

sources.

We obviously have not had an opportunity to consider

our clients, or your clients code but we have been

informed that our clients code was developed

independently and thus believe that it is not an

infringement of copyright.

As far as Duck Hunt is concerned the same situation applies.

We are informed that there are other games called Duck

Hunt and of course as these words are completely

descriptive of what the game is they would certainly

not be registrable as a trade mark.

Again we have been informed that the code was

developed independently and thus there would not

appear to be any copyright infringement.

As we believe this may well be the only area where

there could be a possibility of conflict which needs

to be determined, our client is prepared to undertake

to maintain complete records of the sale of the

cartridges which include these two games so that after

the relevant codes can be compared to see whether

there is any copyright infringement, if there is

infringement then if the code does appear sufficiently

similar for there to be infringement, then a

reasonable royalty could be paid.

We stress that we have been informed by the developer

of the game that there is in fact no infringement but

of course there is at the present time sufficient

(sic) information for an objective opinion to be made.

2. As far as the second query is concerned we refer to

the comments made above.

We do not believe your client has any proprietary

rights in either of the two games referred to and

certainly as far as the second is concerned do not

believe that it could ever be registered as being

fully descriptive.

3. We do not really understand the basis for this objection.

Assuming the adapter is the adapter which enables

connection either to composite video or to a monitor

and audio amplifier such adapters are well known, have

been available in a number of applications for a

number of years and there is certainly no proprietary

rights in these.

4. As far as the guns are concerned you have made no

comments as to whether or not your client has

registered the design of its gun.

You will of course be well aware that whilst there may

be copyright in certain drawings once a corresponding

article has been industrially applied then the

protection under the Copyrights Act is lost and,

unless the article has been registered under the

Designs Act, there is no property which can be infringed.

Thus unless there is a registration of the design of

your client's gun then an identical copy could be made

without breach of any rights.

In any case we have examined the two guns and, whilst

they have a basic similarity, there are many other

guns which have been proposed for analogous

applications which are also similar and it is our

opinion that even if your clients design was

registered there would be no infringement.

You state that you do not have full information as to our

clients system but on examination of the two we can see

absolutely no rights which could be breached.

Our client's system has been sold in other countries of the

world side by side with the Nintendo product and to the best

of our clients knowledge there has been no objection

whatsoever from Nintendo.

Of course if your client does have any industrial property

which could be infringed we would be pleased to consider

this but, in the absence of any further information, we

believe our client has done nothing which could in anyway be

an infringement of your clients rights, or the rights of

your client's Principal.

It is not proposed to provide you with the information set

out under paragraphs a, b and c of your letter as we do not

believe that this is information to which you are entitled."

[169]

"Mattel Pty. Ltd. and Centronics Systems Pty. Ltd.

Spica Entertainment Unit

We refer to previous correspondence in this matter and in

particular to your letter of 5th December, 1989.

We are still seeking instructions in respect of some of the

matters raised in your letter. However, we note that your

client has placed large advertisements for the Spica

Entertainment Unit in the daily press in Melbourne and

accordingly you should now note as follows:-

1. The games to which these names relate all originated

from 'Nintendo' and may well be the most famous series

of video games ever developed. Through widespread

promotion and sales around the world the names have

acquired distinctiveness. The views you have

therefore expressed in respect of these names is

totally rejected.

Moreover, the name 'Mario Brothers' is registered by

our client as a trade mark in Australia. Both names

are subject to overseas copyright registration.

In these circumstances we strongly assert that our

client has proprietary rights in the names referred to

and we are instructed to take immediate action to

prevent the unauthorised use of our client's trade marks.

2. We do not know what particular game cartridge you have

examined but we are confident, that on any objective

view, the games contained in the cartridge which we

have seen as part of the Spica Entertainment Unit will

infringe our client's copyright. We simply do not

accept the view that the code of your client's game

has been independently developed.

3. We are most concerned that the advertisement placed by

your client and referred to above misuses the trade

mark 'Nintendo' and may well constitute a breach of

various provisions in Part V of the Trade Practices

Act. The prominent reference to our client's trade

mark (and indeed the fact that it is a trade mark)

suggests that your client's product has an association

with that of our client. In fact, your client has no

right to use our client's trade mark.

In these circumstances you should note that if any

further advertisements are placed which use the

'Nintendo' trade mark in this manner our client will

immediately seek injunctive relief.

4. Inquiries we have made from our client overseas

suggests that there are no circumstances known to

Nintendo where the Spica Entertainment Unit has been

sold side by side with Nintendo products without

objections from Nintendo.

As indicated above we are seeking further instructions in

respect of other matters raised in your letter.

However, in respect of the matters we have raised you should

note that our client intends to take the strongest possible

action to protect its interests. Any action of your client,

either by way of advertisement or in selling products, which

infringes our client's proprietary rights will result in

immediate action being taken.

Pending us obtaining full instructions from our overseas

suppliers, our client would be prepared to refrain from

action at this stage if you were to undertake -

(a) Not to include in the Unit any games cartridges which

include games the names of which are marketed by our

client or which breach our client's copyright.

(b) To delete all reference to 'Nintendo' from your

advertisements and packaging.

We would be pleased to hear from you within seven (7) days

of the date hereof."

[173]

"15. I immediately made enquiries of Keyman regarding the

history of the PPU chip ('the Spica PPU') used in the

Spica Entertainment Unit. I was informed by Danny

Chan a director of Keyman and believed that the Spica

PPU was developed by United Manufacturing Corporation

('UMC') the major producer of electronic switch

devices in Taiwan.

16. I also compared a PPU chip from a Nintendo games

machine with the one in a Spica machine at that time.

The Nintendo PPU chip fitted on the mother board in

the games console but was not operational because of

having different pin assignments that is certain

functions were at a different position on the chip.

For instance, power and each were located in a

different logic sequence.

17. The Spica PPU used is a standard commercial chip that

can be bought off the shelf. On 11th December 1990 I

examined ten PPU chips selected at random out of about

eight hundred Spica Entertainment Units. They all

carried the UMC logo which is a globe with a grid map

across it. Further, they were labelled UA6538P. I am

informed by Keyman and believe that the UMC chip which

is the Spica PPU was 'announced' by UMC in July 1987.

By this I understand that it was placed on the market

on that date.

18. The Spica PPU is a standard industrial chip. It is

a(n) integrated circuit connecting the CPU (Central

Processing Unit) and the Visual Output Device.

...

22. At all times when there has been a question of

possible infringement of intellectual property rights

I have made extensive enquiries as to the basis of the

complaints. I have been assured by the supplier

Keyman, that the UMC chip comes from a thoroughly

reputable manufacturer, a government sponsored company

in Taiwan. I do not believe that a PPU chip of

general application would be subject to copyright but

if Nintendo do have copyright over the circuit layout

of their chip I believe the assurances of Centronics'

supplier that the UMC chip was created independently.

23. If there were to be an order prevent(ing) Centronics

from importing and selling its games console it is

doubtful whether Centronics could remain in business.

The whole Spica system would have to come off the

market. The business of Centronics is importing

televisions and importing the Spica Entertainment

Unit. Approximately forty percent of the business is

in the televisions and sixty per cent in the Spica

Units and associated games cartridges which are sold

separately.

24. At present about $85,000.00 worth of games cartridges

stock are in storage in Melbourne. It has all been

paid for and it is not possible to return any of it to

Taiwan. Further, Centronics has just concluded a

contract to sell one thousand units per year to NAPF

Electronics in Sydney. By that same contract,

Centronics will supply $100,000.00 worth of Italian

Formenti televisions of mixed size every quarter. If

the Spica Units cannot be supplied the whole contract

will be lost. It is worth $1,700,000.00 to Centronics

over the next four years.

25. Further Centronics has a contract for two hundred Spica

Units per quarter to a Melbourne based partnership Zecha.

This is worth $28,000.00 - $30,000.00 a quarter. At present

Centronics is waiting on a contract in Adelaide. If

Centronics is unable to supply it would damage its

reputation for reliability and make it almost impossible for

it to come back into the market place."

[175]

"MS STRONG: Coming to paragraph 5 where you refer to the

set of 20 samples being sent; you said a moment ago that

when you received the samples you undertook some kind of

assessment of them; what did you do?---Virtually, the only

thing we did is take the leads from the units mainly; we

examined virtually just the top of the units. We made sure

there was identifying logos throughout the inside circuitry

not inside circuitry, the logo on the chips covers. We ---

And if perhaps you could have a look at the mother board of

the SPICA unit as you are describing what you did when you

took the top off the console; what did you see when you

took the top off?---We saw two large units, we assumed them

to be one obviously a processor, one a peripheral unit of

some order. They were both---

Peripheral processing unit is commonly referred to as what,

Mr Latin?---It is called a - referred to a picture

processing unit, but---

Yes, or in initials?---a PPU.

Yes; and are the markings that you see on that example of

the SPICA set the same as those you saw back in 1989?---

Exactly identical.

Yes; and what markings do you see on the CPU there?---

UA6527.

And what does UA mean to you?---Made by UMC.

And is there any other mark on it to identify it as being

made by UMC?---There is a world-map symbol which is just a

circle with a grid on it, and that signifies the UMC symbol.

HIS HONOUR: That is their logo, is it?---Yes, it is.

MS STRONG: And were you familiar with that logo at that

time?---Yes, I am.

Yes; and were you familiar with UMC at that time?---Yes, I

was.

And what did you know about it?---Well, I know they were one

of the biggest companies of chip manufacturers in Taiwan

sponsored by the Taiwanese Government.

Yes; and did you have any personal knowledge of UMC?---On

not personal knowledge, but indirect knowledge of their

existence.

Yes; had you been to Taiwan?---Yes, I have.

Yes; and had you had any contact with UMC there?---Yes, I

have.

Yes; what was that?---Mainly a discussion with some of the

people in Taiwan regarding the manufacturing and process

controls.

Right; now, when you saw the marking - well, immediately

when you saw the two chips were you able to identify which

was the CPU and which was the PPU?---To be honest, not

straight off at first.

Why was that?---Mainly because we knew that the 6538 and the

6527 obviously one had to be a processor and one had to be

some kind of a peripheral to it, but at the time circuit

layouts of the actual mother board were not given to us.

The only way we have managed to sort of have a look at these

units at a later date was when we have actually purchased

the units, which was a large order, they have actually

labelled them 'PPU' and 'CPU' on the actual mother board.

That was not there in the original 20 unsolicited samples.

And I may have taken you too quickly - I asked you questions

about the identifying marks on the CPU; what about the

identifying marks on what you came to understand was the

PPU; were there any?---Identifying marks on the unsolicited

samples or the order itself?

On the unsolicited samples that you investigated?---No.

I mean, a marking on the casing of the PPU?---On the casing

of the PPU? Oh, I am sorry, you are talking about the chip

number which is UA6527, yes.

Is 6527 though, the CPU?---CPU.

Yes; and was there a similar marking on the PPU?---6538.

Right; and did it have any other form of identifying mark

on it?---No.

Did it have a prefix?---UA6538.

Yes; and UA, you told us earlier, was the identifying---

?---UMC.

Yes; and did it also have a world symbol?---Yes, it did.

Right; was there anything about the marking of either the

CPU or the PPU when you first examined the sample set that

caused you any alarm?---No.

Were you familiar with the 65 range of chips?---Very

familiar with the 6500.

And what did you know about them?---I knew that the 6500

series of chips were mainly processors of some sort. They

varied from specification to specification. I was very

aware of the 6502 at the time, which was just an 8-bit

processor with 16-bit address lines. I came to the

deduction that obviously I was looking at a processor of

some sort which would have been an 8-bit processor with

16-bit address lines, that is about as far as it went.

Were you at all concerned over any area of intellectual

property protection for the SPICA unit?---This is one of the

areas that you can - for example, the first thing you do in

a case like this, you make sure that the chips are labelled

by some sort of manufacturer, and that they have got a

replacement coded part. What happens is, if the numbers are

scrubbed from the top or if you have got no identifying

mark, then you know that you might have a problem with a

particular unit. These were clearly labelled in all cases

and of course, replacement parts were available for them.

Yes; but were there other aspects about the protection for

the SPICA unit itself that concerned you when you were

looking at it first of all?---No."

[177]

"But from a business point of view, why would you worry

about a patent?---How can you import a large number of unit

in the country and spend that kind of money and not be sure

about a patent.

Were you discussing with Keyman, the manufacturer, to be the

sole distributor in Australia for the SPICA system---

Australia and New Zealand.

Right. And what difference would it have made to those

discussions if you thought there were no patent over the

unit?---You wouldn't import that unit in the country in the

first place.

Yes, but why not?---You cannot put an investment of this

sort. We are not the company who can afford to do something

of that nature without making sure we are covered.

And what kind of protection did you think that patent would

give the SPICA unit?---No infringement of copyright.

You say in your affidavit that you had discussions with

Mattel, that you negotiated - this is paragraph 6 - that you

negotiated for three months from about July 89 with

representatives from Nintendo's distributor Mattel. Now, if

I handed you a document - your Honour, what I have done is I

have made a working copy that I would be able to make

available to - this is document 66 on the respondent's list.

HIS HONOUR: What is this exactly, Ms Strong?

MS STRONG: Well I'll ask Mr Latin to identify it.

What is that document, Mr Latin, do you recognise it?---Yes,

I do. It was a document that was provided to Mattel

regarding some information on the price of the units to tie

up exclusivity.

Yes, and in fact it is headed what?---Sales exclusive agreement.

Right. And it is a draft document that was prepared by

whom, Mr Latin?---This was prepared by Keyman Electronics.

I see. And what did you decide to do; how did you decide

to handle the SPICA units if you decided to take them?---

Well, there was two ways that we could handle the proposal.

It was, one way was to try to market it ourself but of

course it is a very difficult task because you are entering

a market with a lot of competition so the second best thing

was to approach the distributor of a similar item.

Yes, and did you approach such a distributor directly or did

you go through someone else?---We thought that we didn't

have a high profile that probably was needed for something

of this sort, so we went to a marketing company which at the

time was called Unlimited - I am sorry, it just slipped my

mind. Unlimited Information or something of that nature;

it is a marketing company.

Right?---And we asked them on our behalf to approach Mattel

and - - -

Do you recall the name of the person with whom you dealt at

that marketing company?---Yes, the gentleman name is - I am

sorry.

HIS HONOUR: The name eludes you?---Yes, I am sorry.

MS STRONG: It is not a controversial point, my friend

agrees that I can lead. It was Mr Graham Waters - - -?---

Graham Waters.

- - - of Wealth Accumulators Proprietary Limited wasn't it?

---Correct.

HIS HONOUR: Wealth Accumulators.

MS STRONG: Yes. Optimistic name.

And - so you said that you used the marketing company to

represent you and approach companies already in the market?

---Correct.

And as you say in your affidavit one of those companies was

Mattel?---Correct.

Now, and at that time you were aware that Mattel was the

distributor for Nintendo?---Correct.

Now, this document then that you have identified was a draft

sales exclusive agreement between whom?---Between Centronics

and the new proposed buyer.

And who was that proposed to be at this time?---Mattel."

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (242 paragraphs)

Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584; (1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147 (1 December 1992)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (19)