AGL Energy Limited v Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited

In the case of AGL Energy Limited v Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited FCA 625, AGL sued Greenpeace for copyright and trade mark infringement due to Greenpeace's use of a modified AGL logo in a campaign criticizing AGL's environmental record. While Greenpeace conceded that AGL owned copyright in its logo and it was a valid registered trade mark, Greenpeace argued its use constituted fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review under s 41 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) or parody or satire under s 41A of the same act, and that it did not use the modified logo as a trade mark under s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The court found that Greenpeace's use of the modified AGL logo in online banner advertisements, street posters, and the parody website constituted fair dealing for the purpose of parody or satire under s 41A of the Copyright Act, and therefore did not infringe copyright in those instances. However, the court found copyright infringement in relation to some social media posts, a protest poster image, and some photographs of placards as these uses were not considered parody, satire, criticism, or review. Ultimately, the court dismissed AGL's trade mark infringement claim because Greenpeace's use of the modified logo was not considered "use as a trade mark" to indicate a connection between Greenpeace's services and the modified mark. The court also rejected AGL's claim for additional damages.