The court said that the proceedings had failed to progress meaningfully since its inception
The Federal Court has dismissed a lawsuit involving trademark infringement and misleading conduct related to the Australian Adult Industry Awards (AAIA), citing non-compliance with court orders by the plaintiffs.
The court described the proceedings in Fensom v Jake Ryan Media Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 470 as a “trainwreck” that failed to progress meaningfully since its inception. The case revolved around the unauthorised use of the "AAIA" trademark. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of the trademark constituted an infringement under s.120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in violation of s. 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
A significant turning point in the case occurred during a case management hearing. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file their evidence, which they failed to meet. Further complicating matters, the plaintiffs' new legal representative, Stephen Walters, requested an extension on the deadline for filing their evidence, which was not formally filed through proper channels. The judge extended the deadline, but the plaintiffs still failed to submit the required documents in an acceptable format.
Due to the continued non-compliance from the plaintiffs, the defendants filed an interlocutory application to dismiss the case, leading to a self-executing order that effectively dismissed the proceeding if the plaintiffs failed to meet the new compliance deadline of May 3.
Ultimately, the plaintiffs' last-minute attempt to submit evidence was deemed inadequate, leading to the dismissal of the case. The Federal Court highlighted the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the case diligently, marking the proceedings as a significant drain on judicial resources.
The judge expressed disappointment over the case's progression, noting the evident personal animosity between the parties, which hindered any possibility of mediation. As a final note, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' legal costs, with specifics to be determined by a registrar if not mutually agreed upon. The court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the courts' limited tolerance for parties that fail to take their legal obligations seriously.
