The Koppamurra saga has reached an interesting stage. Judge von Doussa of the Federal Court has placed an interlocutory injunction on Mildara Blass Ltd from using the word ‘Koppamurra’ on the labelling, packaging, marketing or promotion of any of its wines. Furthermore, the injunction restrains Mildara Blass from holding out to the public that Koppamurra is an established regional name. In the meantime, Koppamurra Wines must provide security of $250,000 in the event that once judgement is finally released, Mildara Blass Ltd is found to have won the case and is therefore deemed worthy of damages as a result of the injunction. In his Reasons for Judgement, Judge von Doussa makes several observations: In his opinion there was ‘no unreasonable delay’ on the part of Koppamurra Vineyards in coming to court, although proceedings were indeed commenced on 24 December, 1997. The launch of the first vintage (1995) of Flanagan’s Ridge was 926 cases and is to be succeeded by a comparatively large second crop of between 15-20,000 cases. The following comments are directly taken from the judge’s Reasons for Judgement: ‘if no injunction is granted it is likely that the decision refusing the injunction would be taken as an encouragement by other producers of wine in the area to take advantage of the Koppamurra name.’ ‘The respondent has deliberately sought to resolve the dispute over the use of the Koppamurra name by taking the matter into its own hands. In my view there were other courses that it could have taken, but it has chosen to take a commercial risk in forcing the issue. The respondent is substantially the stronger economic entity and, in my view, it has played on that fact to try and resolve the dispute in the market place, rather than in the Courts. The respondent did so in a way that deliberately kept the applicant in the dark about its plans until the product was on the market. The respondent thereby achieved an uninterrupted start in the market. In my view, these are matters that the Court is entitled to take into account in deciding how now to protect the applicant, on the assumption, for the moment, that the applicant is in the right.’ ‘I consider that many of the losses which the respondent says are likely to flow from an injunction are losses that the respondent will encounter because it chose to pursue a commercial solution to the problem and the risks that were associated with it.’ The trial of the principal proceedings has been listed for 25 May 1998 in the Federal Court of Australia, South Australia District Registry. It could only happen in the law… Mildara Blass Ltd is represented in this case by the Melbourne-based law firm of Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks. In a case in Victoria which parallels these circumstances very closely, Melbourne QC Jeffrey Sher recently settled with Donlevy Fitzpatrick, Clyde Park Vineyards and a number of associated parties after issuing a legal challenge based around the use of the term ‘Port Phillip’ in association with certain Clyde Park wines. Mr Sher owns the small Mornington Peninsula operation of Port Phillip Estate. ‘Port Phillip’ is also entered in the Australian Register of Protected names operated by the Geographical Indications Committee. Since Mr Sher was also represented by Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, it would appear that this firm is quickly learning rather a lot about both sides of the vineyard name vs. regional name debate.
