Page:JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/56

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Gummow J

46.

the requirement of an export permit if the owner or any other person desired to take it out of Australia. The legislation considered in British Medical Association v The Commonwealth[1], and held invalid on other grounds, today perhaps would be thought to be nearer the line of invalidity. In British Medical Association, Dixon J was of the opinion that there was no involuntary taking of property from chemists without just compensation. The chemists were legally free to supply pharmaceuticals or not, as they pleased, in a situation where, if a sale were made at other than a price fixed by the Commonwealth, there would be little or no other trade for them in that commodity."

In Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v The Commonwealth[2], the Court unanimously upheld the validity of a law which provided that copyright in a published sound recording was not infringed by the making on private premises of a copy of the recording on blank tape for the private and domestic use of the maker. This result was reached on the basis that, although the law reduced the content of the exclusive rights given to copyright owners, there was no "acquisition of property". As Dawson and Toohey JJ put it[3], there was no acquisition of property by the conferral of a freedom generally to do something which previously constituted an infringement of the proprietary right of another.

On the other hand, the defendant tortfeasor considered in Georgiadis was, pro tanto, relieved of liability. Further, the sterilisation of the mining tenements in Newcrest augmented the title of the Commonwealth and the Director to the land in question. These two cases illustrate the proposition that the modification or deprivation of the proprietary rights of one party may yield to another party a countervailing benefit or advantage of a proprietary nature.

Conclusions as to "taking"

As noted above, the TMA, like other trade mark legislation, does not confer on registered owners or authorised users a liberty to use registered trade marks free from restraints found in other statutes[4]. Nevertheless, the power of exclusion which is conferred by the TMA, the Patents Act, the Copyright Act and the Designs Act does carry with it the right to relax that exclusivity in favour of


  1. (1949) 79 CLR 201.
  2. (1993) 176 CLR 480. See also Smith v ANL Ltd (2000) 204 CLR 493 at 505–506 [23].
  3. (1993) 176 CLR 480 at 527.
  4. At [78].