IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Australian blawgs

Separovic Injury Lawyers in Perth have compiled an interesring list of Australian legal blogs. Law Geek DownUnder provides useful summaries about the issues in upcoming High Court cases and, when they’re handed down, what they decided. In the past Stephen Warne has explained why all lawyers should have top up professional indemnity insurance (although apparently it does not help solicitors quite as much as it should(?)). I shall have to.. Read More

More ‘fun’ with initial interest confusion

Following last week’s post where Arnold J found Marks & Spencer liable for buying ads on the keyword INTERFLORA because of the initial interest confusion, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the USA has heavily qualified when (perhaps that should be “if” or “if ever”) initial interest confusion can constitute trade mark infringement in the USA. The case is 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 2013 WL 3665627 (10th Cir… Read More

Keywords – Marks & Spencer infringes INTERFLORA TM

Marks & Spencer has been found to have infringed Interflora’s trade mark in the UK by ‘buying’ ads triggered by Google searches for the keyword INTERFLORA.

A couple of other points from Insight on appeal

Following on from the earlier post, the Full Court did, however, dismiss ACER’s appeals against Besanko J’s rulings that: Dr Hart owned the copyright in the SOQH, even though it was created while he was employed by the Department of Education; and The assignment of the right to sue for past infringements was valid.[1] The ruling on the right to sue for past infringements is particularly important as it is.. Read More

Patent trolls

are in the news. The This American Life podcast did a fascinating exposé on Intellectual Ventures, including that good old Current Affair/Today Tonight ambush attempt. But seriously: According to the website: Two years ago, we did a program about a mysterious business in Texas that threatens companies with lawsuits for violating its patents. But the world of patent lawsuits is so secretive, there were basic questions we could not answer. Now we can… Read More

Turns out, damages were payable after all

The Full Court has upheld Insight SRC’s appeal that it was entitled to compensatory damages under s 115(2) of the Copyright Act. When ACER committed the infringements by reproducing the SOHQ, Dr Hart, the owner of the copyright, exploited it through his Insight company as an informal licensee or licensee at will.[1] As is probably not uncommon with “family” companies, the terms of the licence were so unclear Besanko J.. Read More