Comino v Watson Webb Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 66

Comino v Watson Webb Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 66 is a Full Federal Court appeal arising from a broader commercial fight over valve products, technical drawings and registered designs. The dispute sat at the intersection of design entitlement, copyright, confidentiality, misleading conduct and unjustified threats.

The Court largely left the primary judge's core liability findings in place against Mr Comino and Strongcast. Those findings included that Cimberio was at least a co-designer and entitled person in relation to the registered designs, that copyright in the C9746 design drawing had been infringed, that obligations of confidence had been breached, and that there had been contraventions of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. But the Full Court also held that the constructive trust remedy should not stand in the form ordered below, and it allowed the unjustified threats appeal.

For business owners, the practical significance is that a single product-development file can contain several different legal rights. The product itself, the registered design, the technical drawing, and the right to threaten enforcement are not automatically owned or controlled by the same party.

The commercial relationship began in early 2013 when Mr Comino contacted AVI for assistance with manufacturing plumbing product components. AVI imported and distributed valves and related goods. Cimberio, an Italian company, designed and manufactured valves and related systems. Strongcast, controlled by Mr Comino, then entered into a Product Distribution Agreement with AVI on 16 July 2013.

From the start, the parties were not just buying and selling standard stock. They were discussing product development. One early email from Cimberio asked whether the valve needed to be the exact same construction or whether a similar function would suffice, adding that it could offer a much better design. It also asked whether a lockable tamper-proof handle would be preferred. Mr Comino responded that he was interested in seeing what the engineers had in mind, stressed the importance of Strongcast having exclusive sole rights to agreed products supplied by AVI due to their unique characteristics, and said he wanted to view images before production.

That exchange mattered because it showed two things at once. First, Mr Comino understood that intellectual property and exclusivity were commercially important. Second, the parties were already distinguishing between Strongcast's commercial position in the market and Cimberio's role as designer and manufacturer.

During negotiation of the distribution agreement, Mr Comino proposed wording saying both parties would acknowledge proprietary rights in modifications made to new and existing products requested by Strongcast, with rights to be specified by drawings of products manufactured exclusively for Strongcast. AVI's response was revealing. It said Strongcast would have rights to the housing, but not to the ball valve where the product first brought by Mr Comino was significantly different from the final product design by Cimberio. AVI added that Strongcast would of course have exclusive distribution of that design under the contract, but Cimberio would still own the design of the ball valve.

That distinction later became central. The Court treated the exchange as evidence that, as early as 2013, Mr Comino understood the importance of intellectual property rights and understood that exclusive distribution did not necessarily mean ownership of the design itself.

Over the following years, the parties exchanged drawings and comments about lockable handles, locking wings and later a dual-thread feature. Cimberio personnel created revised drawings and sent them through AVI for review. Mr Comino also arranged local modifications such as locking plates and drilled holes. The evidence showed a practical, iterative development process rather than a neat single-author design project.

In 2015 and 2016, the lockable handle issue became more concrete. Mr Comino sent concept photographs showing a rough locking wing attached to a valve body. Cimberio responded that the concept was clear but needed proper design work and prototypes. Later, Cimberio sent drawings of redesigned valves with integrated locking features and asked whether the drawings were acceptable so pricing could be finalised. There were also discussions about mould costs, whether the wing needed to extend further, and whether the added brass would materially affect price.

In 2017, the parties also discussed a dual-thread feature. Mr Comino sent photographs of a modified valve and continued to request changes to the C6827 valve, including an integrated locking wing. AVI passed those requests to Cimberio. Cimberio then sent modified drawings with a padlock wing and explained that a special custom mould would be needed. When Mr Comino wanted the wing to come out further to clear the body of the valve, that feedback was sent back to Cimberio, which then produced further modified drawings.

This was not a case where one party simply bought an off-the-shelf product. It was a collaborative commercial relationship with repeated requests, revisions and approvals. But collaboration did not answer the legal question of who owned what.

The critical document was the C9746 design drawing sent by AVI to Mr Comino on 24 January 2018 with the message: "Here is the updated drawing.. working on some prices now." The drawing included a copyright notice identifying Giacomo Cimberio S.p.A. as owner and also contained a confidentiality notice in Italian. The primary judge found that Mr Comino and Strongcast then provided that drawing, wholly or in substantial part, to Infinity Design and to their patent attorney, and that their patent attorney, as agent, provided it to the Designs Office for the purpose of registering two Australian designs.

That use of the drawing triggered the later litigation. One proceeding concerned ownership of the registered designs. The other involved claims for copyright infringement, breach of confidence, breach of contract, ACL contraventions and unjustified threats, together with a cross-claim alleging AVI's imported valves infringed the registered designs. By the time the matter reached the Full Court, the dispute had become a broad fight about entitlement, misuse of documents, commercial understandings and enforcement conduct.

The Full Court dealt with several appeal issues across different legal categories. On the design side, the central issue was whether the primary judge was right to find that Cimberio was at least a co-designer of the two registered designs and therefore an entitled person at the time of registration. That mattered because Mr Comino was recorded on the Designs Register as owner, while AVI and Cimberio said the registrations had been obtained using Cimberio's drawing and design work.

On the copyright side, the Court had to consider the challenge to findings that Mr Comino and Strongcast directly infringed Cimberio's copyright in the C9746 design drawing by providing it, wholly or in substantial part, to Infinity Design, to their patent attorney, and then through their patent attorney to the Designs Office. The Court also had to consider the related finding that they authorised Infinity Design's infringement.

On the confidentiality side, the appeal challenged the finding that the entire C9746 design drawing constituted confidential information and that obligations of confidence existed. One argument was that if the design itself was jointly owned, the confidential information in the drawing should not have been treated as belonging only to Cimberio. Another argument concerned the respondents' failure to call certain witnesses and whether an adverse inference should have been drawn.

The appeal also raised consumer law issues. The primary judge had found that Mr Comino and Strongcast contravened section 18 of the ACL by making representations to the effect that they would only use the C9746 design drawing for sign-off before manufacture and would not use it for a design registration application. The Full Court therefore had to consider the law around representations by silence, including whether there was a legitimate and reasonable expectation that a representation would be made and, in a liability-only trial, whether damage had been established for the purposes of ACL relief.

There was also an equitable remedy issue. The primary judge had made a declaration involving a constructive trust over an interest in a registered design. The Full Court had to decide whether that remedy went beyond what was necessary to do justice in the circumstances.

Finally, there was a separate appeal about unjustified threats. The primary judge had found that a letter dated 28 February 2020 sent by Foundry Intellectual Property on behalf of Mr Comino did not constitute an unjustified threat under section 77 of the Designs Act. AVI and Cimberio challenged that conclusion, and the Full Court said that challenge should succeed.

The Full Court's synopsis gives the overall result in clear terms. In the main appeal, ground 8 succeeded, and the Court identified that as the ground relating to the remedy of constructive trust. Ground 9 also succeeded in part, but the Court said that partial success did not affect the orders made below. The remaining grounds that were pressed in the main appeal were rejected.

The Court also granted Mr Comino and Strongcast leave to file and rely on a notice of contention in the unjustified threats appeal. Most importantly for that separate appeal, the Full Court held that the unjustified threats appeal succeeded. In other words, the challenge to the primary judge's conclusion that the 28 February 2020 letter was not an unjustified threat was upheld.

In the separate costs matter, the Full Court refused leave to appeal from the costs judgment involving Watson Webb. The Court's synopsis says the proposed appeal had no merit and that the Full Court would not have made a different order.

Although the appeal succeeded on some points, the practical liability picture remained largely the same. The synopsis records the primary judge's findings that Cimberio was at least a co-designer and entitled person for the registered designs, that Mr Comino and Strongcast directly infringed and authorised infringement of copyright in the C9746 design drawing, that they breached obligations of confidence by disclosing the drawing for design registration purposes, and that they contravened section 18 of the ACL by making representations about limited use of the drawing.

The important qualification is procedural. The Full Court did not issue a final settled form of orders in the material used for this page. Instead, in both appeal proceedings it ordered the parties to confer and prepare a form of order reflecting the reasons, or otherwise provide competing draft orders, and to make submissions on form and costs within 14 days. That means the reasons establish the appeal outcome, but the final wording of the orders was still to be settled after judgment.

There is also a separate limitation on relief. The proceedings below had already been split so that liability was determined separately from quantum. The primary judge had stated that quantification of an account of profits or damages, additional damages under the Copyright Act, and damages or compensation under the ACL would be determined at a later hearing. So this decision should be read mainly as a liability and appellate-remedy decision, not a final quantification decision.

The strongest commercial lesson from this case is that product development rights need to be broken down, not bundled together. Businesses often speak loosely about "the design" as if there is only one right in play. This case shows that there may be at least four separate questions: who owns the product design, who is entitled to register a design, who owns copyright in the drawing, and what uses of the drawing are permitted. If your contract or email trail does not answer those questions clearly, a court will reconstruct the position from the surrounding conduct and the wording of the documents.

The distinction between design ownership and drawing ownership is especially important. A business may contribute commercially valuable ideas, ask for modifications, or even be treated as having some entitlement position in relation to a registered design. But that does not mean it owns the technical drawing supplied by the manufacturer or designer. If that drawing carries a copyright notice and a confidentiality notice, using it for a filing or passing it to a third party can create separate liability even if the business believes it has broader rights in the product itself.

This matters in real commercial settings because many SMEs work informally. They ask a supplier to tweak a product, receive updated drawings by email, and then send those drawings to a patent attorney or industrial designer without checking whether they have permission to do so. The Court's reasons show how dangerous that can be.

The case also shows that silence can be risky. The ACL findings recorded in the synopsis were based on representations to the effect that the drawing would only be used for sign-off before manufacture and not for a design registration application. Businesses sometimes assume that if they do not expressly promise anything, they are safe. But in some commercial contexts, conduct and silence together can convey a representation about how a document will be used.

Another practical point is enforcement discipline. If your business wants to send a warning letter alleging design infringement, do not treat it as a routine sales or collections step. The unjustified threats appeal succeeded here, which means the wording and legal basis of such letters matter. A poorly grounded threat can create a separate claim against the sender.

Finally, businesses should note the remedial side of the case. Even where liability is established, the court may still limit or reshape the remedy. The Full Court held that the constructive trust ground succeeded, showing that proprietary remedies are not automatic. And because quantum was separated from liability, the financial consequences were still to be worked out later. That means early legal advice can still materially affect both exposure and strategy even after liability findings are made.

The Full Court judgment is dated 21 May 2026. The appeals were heard on 17 and 18 March 2026. The liability judgment under appeal was Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871, and the separate costs judgment was Watson Webb v Comino (No 2) [2025] FCA 1294.

The Court's orders in the appeal proceedings required the parties to confer and prepare a form of order reflecting the reasons, or otherwise provide competing draft orders, within 14 days. The parties were also directed to file submissions on the form of order and on costs. In the costs leave application, the Court refused leave to appeal and directed the parties to confer on a form of costs order for that application.

The proceedings below had already been split between liability and quantum. The primary judge stated that quantification of the account of profits or damages, additional damages under the Copyright Act, and damages or compensation under the ACL would be determined at a later hearing. So the case status reflected in this page is that the Full Court reasons determine the appeal outcome on liability and some remedial issues, but not the final amount of pecuniary relief.

This page is based on the published Federal Court reasons for Comino v Watson Webb Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 66 dated 21 May 2026. The reasons available for this page include the synopsis, orders, legislative references and substantial factual background, but the text available is truncated before the end of the judgment.

Because of that, this page focuses on the appeal outcome and factual matters clearly stated in the published reasons used here. Readers should keep in mind that the final form of orders was to be settled after judgment and that quantification of pecuniary relief was to be determined separately.

This page is general information only and not legal advice. If your business is collaborating on product development, using supplier drawings, filing a design application or considering an infringement letter, get advice on entitlement, copyright, confidentiality and enforcement risk before acting.