Nicholas J has granted Thomas International an interlocutory injunction ordering Humantech to transfer the domain names, thomasinternational.com.au and thomas.co.za, to Thomas International. Thomas International had to give the usual undertakings and, as a foreign corporation, provide security for costs.
Bromberg J orders transfer of the domain names arising from trade mark infringement, but Middleton J finds no misrepresentation in the use of vendoradvocacy.com
Jonathan Bailey, of Plagiarism Today fame, has a post over at the Blog Herald: “Why We Don’t Need More Domain Extensions“. As of last month, 4 new gTLDs had already been approved but more than 1,000 have made it passed the “initial evaluation stage”. Private auctions for new gTLDs where there is more than one applicant are starting. The new gTLDs aren’t here yet but scary as it is, this is going to.. Read More
If you have tried to buy, sell or rent property in Australia in the last 10 years (at the least!), like some nearly 7 million other Australians you have no doubt come across realestate.com.au, the web-portal run by REA Group. Real One also competes in that space. Bromberg J has held that Real One’s logos: did not “pass off” REA Group’s logos: Nor did they infringe REA Group’s registered trade mark:  However, the.. Read More
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. July 16, 2013)… Read More
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.
The High Court has unanimously allowed Google’s appeal from the Full Federal Court’s ruling that Google was liable for misleading or deceptive statements in sponsored links. According to the Court’s summary (pdf): The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Google did not create the sponsored links that it published or displayed. Ordinary and reasonable users of the Google search engine would have understood that the representations conveyed by the sponsored links were those.. Read More
Following on from yesterday’s post, @davidstarkoff points out that: the transcript of the special leave application can be found here; and in due course, the submissions will appear here. The hearing of the appeal has been fixed for 11 September 2012.
Apparently, back on 25 June the High Court granted Google special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s ruling that Google is liable for the misleading ads placed by advertisers. Maybe the internet will be able to keep working in Australia after all. Austlii is only up to 20 June, at the time of posting. Lid dip “Law Geek Down Under“
According to the Age today, a number of (fashion) importers have agreed with their overseas manufacturers that the manufacturers will not supply orders to online purchasers in Australia: Importers close door on overseas online stores by Rachel Wells. The Gerry Harvey-esque arguments about how GST makes local retailers uncompetitive get a run again but, as previously noted, Prof. Gans is not convinced by that (in the context of digital downloads). This announcement seems.. Read More