Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 MARCH 2026

近期商标和假冒纠纷案例中临时禁令的策略和经验教训

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Explore more from Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

2025 年 12 月，澳大利亚联邦法院审理了两起品牌纠纷中的临时（或初步）禁令申请：Prezzee Pty Ltd 诉 Epay Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1662 和 Lindrum 诉 T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1644。

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Katrina Crooks
Katrina Crooks
Kelly Guo
Kelly Guo
Author LinkedIn connections

2025 年 12 月，澳大利亚联邦法院审理了两起品牌纠纷中的临时（或初步）禁令申请：Prezzee Pty Ltd 诉 Epay Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1662 和 Lindrum 诉 T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1644。

为什么 Prezzee 案的禁令获得了批准，而 Lindrum 案的禁令却没有？我们将分析导致这两种截然不同的法律结果的各种因素，并探讨：我们可以从中吸取哪些教训？

商标纠纷中品牌所有者的关键经验教训

  • 在寻求紧急救济时，拥有注册商标具有显著的实务优势；
  • 在叫停产品上市或要求中途进行品牌重塑之前，法院会要求看到确凿的证据来证明所造成的损害；
  • 延迟提出申请可能会造成致命后果。

案件事实

Prezzee 诉 Epay

  • 数字礼品卡公司 Prezzee 在澳大利亚拥有多个 PREZZEE 注册商标。
  • Epay 已在新西兰注册并使用了 PREZZY 商标。2025 年 8 月，Epay 在澳大利亚推出了"Giftzzy"礼品卡，卡上显著印有"Powered by Prezzy Card"字样。
  • Prezzee主张Epay的行为构成商标侵权、假冒并违反《澳大利亚消费者法》，并申请多项禁令，以禁止Epay使用"PREZZY"字样，并要求其采取一切合理措施，将带有Prezzy标识的产品或营销材料从市场上撤回并销毁。
  • 指示其停止销售这些卡片
  • 听证会举行时，约有 47,000 张印有被诉争议字样的 Giftzzy 礼品卡仍在 1,800 家零售店流通。

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Article

Updates To Malaysia’s Proposed Patent Linkage Framework

Malaysia is drafting its first patent linkage framework for pharmaceutical products, scheduled for implementation on 1 May 2027 following CPTPP ratification. The National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency has released draft guidelines establishing an administrative connection between drug registration and patent status, introducing notification requirements, suspension periods, and four application categories that will fundamentally reshape how innovators and generic manufacturers navigate market entry.
MalaysiaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Australia | Proposed Tranche 2 Privacy Act Reforms: Exposure Draft And Consultation Paper Released

The Australian Government has released an exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026, proposing the most substantial reforms to the Privacy Act 1988 in recent times. These changes introduce a fair and reasonable test for data handling, enhanced consent requirements, expanded breach notification obligations, and new rights including data erasure for large digital platforms.
AustraliaPrivacy
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers