What this is
What the 7.5% royalty rate in the 2017 Australian case against Redbubble was applied to: the online marketplace's gross sales to consumers. What base the US arm's real licences use stays unknown.
How it’s built
- Read paragraphs 71, 73 and 74 of the Federal Court of Australia judgment.
- Paragraph 73 frames the claim as the royalty the US arm would have earned on an authorised sale of the same item, using Redbubble's gross Australian sales of Pokémon-tagged items; paragraph 74 instead multiplies units by 0.075.
What we assumed
- The rate was applied to consumer gross sales.The judgment never writes rate × gross sales; a strong inference.
- The 7.5% works as a retail-based rate.Whether licences pay 7.5% of retail or about 15% of wholesale, the text cannot tell.
Sanity check
It settles the base used for the damages claim, not the base of the company's licences, which the judgment never states.
The value
- Licence royalty base: unstated (A, absence:)
Some detail is too fine to show here; it is kept in the trainer’s notes.
Where it comes from
Our calculation from other figures in the trainer’s notes.
Show the working
- text A (para 73 inputs + "application of the royalty rate of 7.5% upon... an authorised sale for the same item")
- base = consumer gross sales C
- licence base retail-equivalent C