Affinage and A.S.P. 2

For completeness, I should note that IHC UK has appealed Logan J’s decision earlier this month finding that it infringed IHC Australia’s registered trade mark for AFFINAGE. Summary here. Interestingly, Logan J has granted a stay of his order to remove all references to A.S.P. from IHC UK’s Web site at www.affinage.com. You will recall that […]

How wide should injunctions be

Following on from his ruling that Idameneo’s use of its trade mark breached its contractual obligation not to use a trade mark capable of being confused with Symbion’s trade mark, Jessup J has granted an injunction: The Respondent be permanently restrained, whether by itself or through its subsidiaries from using the Respondent’s Mark. Three aspects […]

A lamp lens too far

The fifth decision under the “new” Designs Act 2004 illustrates the operation of that old principle: in a crowded field, small differences may be enough to confer validity, but equally small differences in the accused products will be sufficient to avoid liability. You will recall that LED Technologies successfully sued Elecspess (and others) for infringing […]

Amazon’s 1-click in Australia

On Telstra’s opposition to the grant of Amazon’s 1-click patent in Australia, the Commissioner’s delegate has found that: claims 1, 2 and 4 to 61 were invalid; but: It seems to me that the use to which server generated client identifiers [i.e., cookies] are put in the present invention is both an elegant and inventive […]

capable of being confused with the trade mark

Jessup J has ruled that Idameneo’s use of: does not infringe Symbion’s registered trade mark for: (As registered, the trade mark is not coloured; it was generally used in the colours depicted. See s 70(3).) However, Idameneo’s use of its trade mark did breach its contractual obligations. On the trade mark infringement front, you might […]

Apple and Samsung Pt 2

Just noting this as a matter of record: One week after Apple sued Samsung, Samsung sued Apple for patent infringements, apparently in 4 countries. One point of interest is that this is not Samsung’s defence to Apple’s claims, but is filed so soon after Apple went to court. Nilay Patel considers it all in detail […]

Framing the Convergence Review

On 28 April, the Government’s Convergence Review (noted here) issued a Framing Paper. According to p. 4 of this curious document: This initial consultation paper seeks to identify the principles that should guide media and communications regulation in Australia, and provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise the key issues arising from the principles. Its […]

You can arbitrate disputes under an IP licence agreement

Hamerschlag J, in the New South Wales Supreme Court, has ruled that disputes between a licensor and licensee under a technology licence agreement fall within the arbitration clause in the agreement and, consequently, the arbitrator’s determination that he has jurisdication is valid and binding on the parties. The disputes between the parties related to (1) […]

(Not) a case of PBR

Caithness applied for the grant of plant variety rights for the potato variety ‘Nadine’ on 21 May 1992. That application was accepted by the Registrar on 28 May 1992. On 10 November 1994, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 came into force and repealed the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. On 16 August 1995, Caithness’ […]