IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Confidentiality

by

Watson Webb v Comino: When Valves Burst Into a Multi-IP Flood

If you thought plumbing valves were boring, think again.

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871 is a sprawling reminder that IP disputes can leak into every corner of the law — from designs and copyright to confidence, consumer law and patents.

The Case in a Nutshell

At the heart of the fight was who really owned the rights to a series of valve designs — All Valve Industries (AVI) and its Italian partner Cimberio, or Mr Comino and his company Strongcast. What started as a commercial relationship around importing and distributing valves became a flood of litigation once design drawings, product launches and patent filings entered the picture.

Designs: Entitlement, Validity and Infringement

  • Entitlement: The Court found that Cimberio was at least a co-designer of the registered designs. Mr Comino couldn’t claim sole credit.

  • Validity: The designs were new and distinctive enough over prior art.

  • Infringement: AVI’s products weren’t substantially similar, so no design infringement was made out.

  • Unjustified threats: A strongly worded solicitor’s letter wasn’t enough to count as a threat.

Copyright: Drawings Matter

The critical twist: design registration was based on drawings created by Cimberio. Using them without permission crossed into copyright infringement.

The Court found:

  • Cimberio’s copyright subsisted in the drawings.

  • Comino and Strongcast copied and authorised copying when they used those drawings to file design applications.

  • Cimberio is entitled to an account of profits plus additional damages.

Breach of Confidence and Constructive Trust

The same drawings carried obligations of confidence. Comino’s disclosure and use of them breached that duty.

The Court imposed a constructive trust — transferring Comino’s interest in the registered designs to Cimberio.

That’s a dramatic remedy, showing courts will reorder ownership when confidential information is misused.

Consumer Law: Silence Speaks

By not telling AVI and Cimberio that the drawings were being used to file design rights, Comino engaged in misleading conduct under s 18 ACL.

Silence can mislead — especially in a close commercial relationship.

Patents: Invalid and Ineffective

Strongcast also relied on an innovation patent for a pipe bracket.

The Court held claims 1–4 invalid for lack of clarity, support, sufficiency and novelty.

Even if valid, no infringement was established.

Why It Matters

This case is a reminder that:

  • Design entitlement must be nailed down early — who really created the design?

  • Copyright overlaps with designs are still powerful, especially when drawings are copied into applications.

  • Constructive trusts are on the table where confidential information is misused.

  • Consumer law can bite in IP disputes in many and varied ways — misleading silence can be enough.

  • Innovation patents (now extinct) often struggled on validity grounds.

What looks like a simple plumbing part turned into a judgment that touches almost every corner of IP law.

For brand owners, designers and manufacturers, the message is clear: guard your drawings, document your entitlement, and don’t assume silence will save you.

by

When Copying Doesn’t Pay: Lift Shop v Next Level Goes All the Way Up

What happens when copyright infringement is admitted but the “big ticket” remedies fall away?

The recent battle between residential lift rivals Lift Shop and Next Level Elevators shows how hard it can be to turn technical wins into commercial victories.

The Backstory

Lift Shop and Next Level are fierce competitors in the Australian residential lift market. The dispute began when a Lift Shop quotation template found its way into Next Level’s hands in late 2019. Next Level adapted the template and used it for a few months until April 2020.

Lift Shop sued in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, claiming:

  • Copyright infringement of its quotation documents,

  • Breach of confidence over information allegedly supplied by a former employee, and

  • Misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL in relation to marketing and compliance claims.

Next Level hit back with its own ACL allegations.

The Primary Judgment (June 2024)

Judge Baird found that Next Level (and two of its directors) had indeed infringed Lift Shop’s copyright by using the quotation template. But the win was thin:

  • Additional damages refused: Although infringement was established, the Court declined to award extra damages under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act. The use was brief, not particularly lucrative, and not deemed “flagrant.”

  • Breach of confidence dismissed: Lift Shop couldn’t prove its customer quotes were truly confidential. Some of the same material had even been accessible on its website due to a coding plug-in glitch.

  • ACL claims failed on both sides: The Court wasn’t persuaded that either company had misled consumers about their lifts. Importantly, the judge observed the Court was not an industry regulator.

In short, Lift Shop walked away with a declaration of infringement, but none of the additional relief it wanted.

The Appeal (August 2025)

Unhappy with the limited result, Lift Shop appealed to the Full Court. Its main targets were:

  1. Additional damages – arguing the primary judge was wrong to rule them out before quantum was assessed.

  2. Flagrancy – insisting Next Level’s copying was sufficiently egregious to attract extra damages.

  3. Confidential information – contending the judge erred in finding no breach of confidence and in admitting documents obtained from its website by Next Level’s solicitors.

The Full Court (Feutrill, Neskovcin and Moore JJ) dismissed the appeal:

  • Additional damages can be decided early: The Court confirmed that entitlement to additional damages can be determined at the liability stage, even before election or quantum. Entitlement and quantification are distinct steps. This follows the approach in Redbubble v Hells Angels and Motorola v Hytera.

  • Flagrancy is a matter of degree: The assessment under s 115(4) isn’t binary (“flagrant or not”). It involves weighing the degree of flagrancy along with other factors. The primary judge’s evaluative judgment disclosed no error under House v The King.

  • No confidentiality: A Lift Shop customer quote was not confidential, particularly when similar documents were accessible online. The Court also held that Next Level’s solicitors had not acted improperly in locating documents via the website.

Result: appeal dismissed with costs.

Key Takeaways

  • Copyright is not a lottery ticket. Even where infringement is admitted, additional damages are far from automatic. Courts look for truly egregious, flagrant conduct.

  • Two steps to additional damages. Entitlement and quantification are separate. Entitlement can be determined at the liability stage – and losing that fight early can dramatically weaken a case.

  • Confidentiality must be managed. If “confidential” material can be accessed on a public website, or is too widely circulated, courts are reluctant to protect it.

  • ACL claims cut both ways. Rival traders often throw ACL allegations at each other, but without strong evidence, the Court may simply dismiss both.

Why It Matters

For litigants, this case is a reminder that winning the infringement battle doesn’t always mean winning the war on remedies. Strategic choices about pleading confidentiality, securing websites, and framing additional damages arguments can decide whether a lawsuit delivers real value—or just a hollow declaration.

by

Confidential No More? New Aim Took Their Shot and Missed

When a former executive walks away with your China-based supplier list and gives it to a competitor, you’d expect a legal showdown. That’s exactly what happened in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2025] FCA 747 —but the result was not what New Aim hoped for.

In this long-running saga, the Federal Court found that New Aim’s claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract, and breach of s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) all fell short. Why? Because the supplier information simply didn’t meet the legal threshold of “confidentiality”.

⚖️ What New Aim Argued

New Aim is a major online retailer importing from China. It claimed its former Chief Commercial Officer, Mr Leung, misused confidential supplier information—particularly WeChat contacts and sourcing intel—after leaving to work with rival businesses Broers and Sun Yee.

The alleged “New Aim Confidential Information” included:

  • Supplier identities and contact details (especially the WeChat contact list);

  • Wholesale prices and other commercial data.

New Aim argued this information was compiled through significant internal effort and should be protected by equity, contract, and s 183.

🧯 But the Court Disagreed

Justice Neskovcin methodically dismantled the claim:

🔍 1. Not Sufficiently Specific

The alleged confidential information wasn’t identified with enough precision—supplier lists without deeper operational context were too generic.

🕵️‍♂️ 2. No Necessary Quality of Confidence

New Aim’s suppliers were discoverable via public sources like Alibaba and the Canton Fair. Many of the suppliers openly advertised their relationships with New Aim, or at least didn’t treat them as secret.

🧱 3. Insufficient Safeguards

While New Aim used access controls on its internal systems, it allowed employees—including Mr Leung—to store supplier contacts on personal WeChat accounts. There was no clear evidence of policies prohibiting this.

📱 4. Personal Know-How ≠ Protected IP

Mr Leung’s “mental stock of knowledge”—including who supplied what and who was good—was not protected under confidentiality doctrines unless clearly separated and secured.

🚫 5. No Breach of s 183

Because the supplier information wasn’t confidential, its use by Mr Leung post-employment didn’t breach s 183 (which prohibits improper use of information obtained as a company officer).

💡 Key Lessons for Businesses

  • You can’t just call it “confidential” and expect it to be. The Court wants proof: technical secrecy, access controls, and clear internal policies.

  • WeChat is not a secure container for proprietary information. If staff are using personal messaging apps for business, you may have a leak in your IP defences.

  • Former employees aren’t fiduciaries forever. Once their duties end, so do their restraints—unless equity or contract says otherwise.

📌 Final Thought

In a commercial world that thrives on supplier relationships, New Aim v Leung (No 4) is a reminder: if your IP walks out the door with your staff, you’d better hope it was nailed down first.