City Beach Australia has been ordered to pay more than $250,000 in damages to Seafolly as a result of infringing conduct.
Earlier this week, Justice Dodds-Streeton of the Federal Court of Australia found that City Beach infringed copyright in three of Seafolly’s swimwear fabric designs, being the English Rose print, the Covent Garden print, and the Senorita embroidery.
She ordered that City Beach pay a total of $250,333.06 in damages to Seafolly as a result of its infringing conduct.
During the conduct of the proceeding, a number of further City Beach garment styles were discovered by Seafolly which it alleges infringe its English Rose print. The parties agreed by consent to stay the hearing of these additional claims.
For this reason, a decision on costs has not yet been made in the proceeding, however, the matter will now return to the trial judge for determination of these additional copyright infringement claims.
“As a business we invest significant time and money ensuring our design teams create inspirational and unique fabric designs for our customer,” Anthony Halas, Seafolly CEO, said.
“It is important that Seafolly protects its original fabric designs so that our loyal customers are guaranteed that the garments they purchase feature fabric designs that are not knocked off by other traders.
“Seafolly is a global business and unique fabric designs have become synonymous with the Seafolly brand. Action needs to be taken against copiers of Seafolly’s fabric designs to ensure that our reputation as an innovative designer is retained and upheld”.
Jonathan Feder, a Partner of K&L Gates, who acted for Seafolly in this proceeding, said that the ruling of the case was “an important deterrent to would be copyists in the marketplace”.
“Seafolly takes the copying of its original fabric designs and garments seriously. By not taking action, Seafolly would be permitting copyists to take these original designs without having to incur the significant costs that are incurred by the likes of Seafolly in coming up with these innovative designs. Litigation in cases such as this is an important deterrent to would be copyists in the marketplace”.
