IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Gene (no)patenting bill going down

The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has, by majority, recommended that the Senate should not pass the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010. The Bill is a private members’ effort and, perhaps not surprisingly, the three of its sponsor still in the Senate dissented. (At the time of writing, it is proving difficult to get a working link to the text of the Bill itself.) According to the EM it.. Read More

Talking head, travelling slideshow

My Copyright Update 2011 for IPSANZ travels to Adelaide on 28 September. If you’re in Adelaide, hope to see you there.

Google’s keywords advertising

News just in: Google’s placement of advertisements, generated through its AdWords program, on search results pages is not misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 TPA / s 18 ACL (I’m afraid you have to scroll down).  However, the advertiser’s use of another trader’s name in the headline for an advertisement which had nothing to do with that trade was. So for example, the Trading Post used the AdWords program to generate an.. Read More

Coke v Pepsi

The war between Coke and Pepsi over the shape of a bottle is alive and well. Last week the parties were in court fighting over discovery. By the tie of the hearing what was actually in dispute was quite narrow. In the end, Dodds-Streeton J ruled that Coca Cola should be allowed to get discovery amongst other things from Schweppes, Pepsi’s bottler in Australia, relating to whether or not Schweppes had sought any.. Read More

Optus TV Now … 2

Follow last Friday’s post, in the twittersphere @wenhu points out that s 22(6) defines who the maker of a communication is: (6)  For the purposes of this Act, a communication other than a broadcast is taken to have been made by the person responsible for determining the content of the communication. (6A)  To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (6), a person is not responsible for determining the content of a communication merely because the person.. Read More

Optus TV Now and the threat to sports’ millions

The media yesterday was splashed with stories about how Optus is threatening the flow of revenues to sports such as the NRL and the AFL through its TV Now service (for example, here and here and here). Hundreds of millions of dollars are apparently at stake. Basically, it looks like you download an “app” to your phone or computer and you can then record (or perhaps more strictly, instruct Optus to record) a television.. Read More

How wide should an injunction be?

Having granted summary judgment against Paul’s Retail for infringement of a range of fashion brands trade marks and copyright, Kenny J has now made orders for the remedies flowing from the infringements. One point of general interest was the dispute about the scope of the injunctions. Her Honour accepted that injunctions were a conventional remedy for intellectual property infringement and were appropriate for grant in this case, largely because it appears the respondents.. Read More

Telstra v PDC update

The transcript of Telstra’s unsuccessful application for special leave has now been posted here. The Sydney Morning Herald speculates that Telstra is seeking talks with the Attorney General “to close the loophole”. One consequence of the High Court’s revolution in copyright law is that the privacy regime which prevents the use of the Integrated Public Number Database (and IPND Industry Code) to create reverse-number directories has been undermined. As its name suggests, a reverse-number.. Read More

Names and transfer policies for .au domain names

auDA is the body regulating the .au “name space” or ccTLD. In that role, it has issued a number of policies including the auDRP (modelled on the UDRP) for the resolution of disputes between rights “holders” and the registrants of confusingly similar domain names. auDA’s Board has now announced its acceptance of a number of the recommendations of: the 2010 Names Policy Panel (pdf); and the Secondary Market Working Group (pdf). 2010 Names Policy Panel.. Read More

IPSANZ and patent amendments

One of the interesting sessions at the IPSANZ conference was David Catterns QC and the 2 Gregs talking about amending patent specifications – before and after grant. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with the view that, all other things being equal, you should amend before litigation rather than during (although how often are all other things equal, especially for patents in multiple jurisdictions). Australian law, at least insofar as it concerns amendments before the Commissioner,.. Read More