ipwars.com

In a decision which no doubt has some further distance to run, Newey J (sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court in England) has ruled that the owner of copyright does not have a proprietary interest in the proceeds (read profits) made by an infringer of the copyright.

Harris et al. are alleged to be the person (or persons) behind the Newzbin file sharing sites which, amongst other things, have been found to infringe the movie studios’ copyrights in a range of films (here and here, where Arnold J ordered the ISPs to block access).

In December last year, the Newzbin sites appear to have closed down, claiming they had run out of money.

Having obtained freezing orders (formerly called Mareva injunctions) against the assets of the defendants (such as the house in which Mr Harris lives and the Maclaren car he parks in its driveway), the movie studios sought “proprietary injunctions” over the assets as well. This seems to involve a court determination that the assets in question were the property of the movie studios rather than the defendants. For example, Newey J explained the difference between the (already in place) freezing order and the injunctions now sought by reference to Millett LJ’s description:

“The courts have always recognised a clear distinction between the ordinary Mareva jurisdiction and proprietary claims. The ordinary Mareva injunction restricts a defendant from dealing with his own assets. An injunction of the present kind, at least in part, restrains the defendants from dealing with assets to which the plaintiff asserts title. It is not designed merely to preserve the defendant’s assets so as to be available to meet a judgment; it is designed to protect the plaintiff from having its property expended for the defendant’s purposes”.

The movie studios based their argument on observations in the Spycatcher cases that Peter Wright may have held the rights in Spycatcher on constructive trust for the Crown in view of his breaches of duties of confidence and fidelity.

Newey J seems to have rejected this claim partly on the basis that there were cases binding on him (albeit apparently disapproved by the Privy Council) ruling that there was no such proprietary interest and partly on the basis that s 18 of the Copyright Act 1956 had expressly deemed the copyright owner to be the owner of infringing copies and provided remedies in conversion and detention. That remedy, however, had been repealed by the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 as unjust and unfair.

There are some interesting issues for Australians.

First, the conversion/detention remedy on the basis of deemed ownership has not been repealed (but is now discretionary) – see s 116 (but the Full Court may not be too keen on the remedy – see [94] of French and Kiefel JJ (as their Honours then were).

Secondly, in Lenah Game Meats, Gummow and Hayne JJ did say at [102]:

A cinematograph film may have been made, as in Lincoln Hunt, in circumstances involving the invasion of the legal or equitable rights of the plaintiff or a breach of the obligations of the maker to the plaintiff. It may then be inequitable and against good conscience for the maker to assert ownership of the copyright against the plaintiff and to broadcast the film. The maker may be regarded as a constructive trustee of an item of personal (albeit intangible) property, namely the copyright conferred by s 98 of the Copyright Act[96]. In such circumstances, the plaintiff may obtain a declaration as to the subsistence of the trust and a mandatory order requiring an assignment by the defendant of the legal (ie statutory) title to the intellectual property rights in question[97]. Section 196(3) of the Copyright Act provides that an assignment of copyright does not have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor.

Gaudron and Callinan JJ also agreed.

Newey J considered, however, that:

i) The point under consideration (viz. whether copyright in a film made unlawfully was subject to a trust) was rather different to that with which I am concerned (viz. whether a copyright owner has a proprietary claim to the fruits of infringement); and

ii) The Australian approach to constructive trusts is by no means the same as that in this jurisdiction. In particular, as the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia noted in Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No. 2) [2012] FCAFC 6 (in paragraph 574)

His Lordship’s second point may be thought to be a second factor why an Australian court might take a different approach to his Lordship’s conclusion.

As to the first point, one might well think, if such a constructive trust arose, that the trustee would have to account for the fruits of the use of the trust property and possibly even handover such fruits as were still in his possession.

Finally, the Privy Council’s rejection of the authority binding on Newey J (and the determination of the movie studios) may well indicate that Newey J’s decision is just the first step in the war.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Harris [2013] EWHC 159

Lid dip: Fiona Phillips

Share on Facebook

Andrew Sykes, a barrister and trade marks attorney, has started a new trade mark resource: Australian Trade Mark Opposition Law.

According to the website:

The purpose of this site is to provide quick, reliable answers to practitioners working with trade mark oppositions and appeals. Therefore the aim is to keep excessive academic discussion to a minimum and make good use of relevant and helpful citation to authorities. ….

The website is a work in progress with additional details and material dealing with further grounds and links to be added. Based on what is up already, however, Andrew has some interesting ideas.

Check it out!

Share on Facebook

Following the conclusion of consultations about the draft Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment Regulations (the regulations to implement the “Raising the Bar” amendments), IP Australia has published a document outlining the outcomes of the consultation process.

The document outlines what IP Australia is proposing to do/implement in relation to:

Schedule 1

• preliminary search and opinion
• search fee
• priority date
• other things

Schedule 3

• filing of evidence in oppositions
• extensions of time to file evidence
• confidentiality
• fees for notice of intention to defenddefence (TM oppositions) (lid dip: Andrew Sykes)
• cooling off period for patent oppositions (not in the public interest)
• dismissing trade mark oppositions for inadequately particularised grounds
• document service
• no changes to basis for adding grounds / particulars to a notice of opposition
• no change to costs provisions

Schedule 4

• suspension regime for patent / trade mark attorneys will be retained

Schedule 5

• customs seizure: regulations will be amended to require importers to provide full name, telephone number and address for service in ‘claim for release’ forms
• email address will not be made mandatory

Schedule 6

• applicants for patents will have 2 months to respond to a direction to request examination after examination has been deferred
• acceptance period after 1st report on patent application has been issued will be reduced to 12 months
• “IP Australia will not require a statement of entitlement at filing for standard patents (or at national phase entry for PCT applications). Instead, the statement will be required when the applicant requests examination, as part of the approved form.” Applicants for an innovation patent will still need to provide the statement when filing the application
• The Commissioner / Registrar will retain discretion to decide whether hearings should be decided on the papers without oral presentation
• Apparently, there are technical corrections that will be implemented to

Links to:

Public Consultation Update papers

IP Australia’s Press Release

IP Australia’s helicopter summary of Raising the Bar, more links and IP Australia’s summaries for patents, copyright, trade marks and designs.

Patentology looks at the good news for SMEs and some of the things rejected, here.

Share on Facebook

The Full Court has rejected another attempt by Paul’s Retail to invoke s 123 against allegations it was infringing LONSDALE trade marks.

Background

Lonsdale Sports Limited (Lonsdale UK) had a number of registered trade marks in Australia and elsewhere for LONSDALE.

In May 2008, it licensed Punch GmbH to use the LONSDALE trade marks in a number of countries, mostly in Europe. As part of the licence, Punch was permitted to get its LONSDALE goods made in China.

In June 2011, Lonsdale UK assigned its Australian trade marks to Lonsdale Australia. Both Londsdale Sports Limited and Lonsdale Australia were members of the same corporate group, having Sports Direct as their ultimate holding company.

Between December 2011 and April 2012, the appellants bought and imported into Australia 293,329 products bearing the LONSDALE trade marks. The way the goods were sourced plainly gave rise to considerable skepticism in the courts.

The goods were in fact made and marked by Punch in China. Punch sold them to Unicell. Punch invoiced Unicell and shipped them to Unicell in Sri Lanka, part of Punch’s territory, and bought them from Punch. . Unicell then engaged in ‘certain “pre-retailing” activities (such as splitting, tagging and pricing) and shipped them to the appellants via the intermediary of  TMS LLC (a US company).

Punch paid royalties to Lonsdale UK on the goods it shipped to Unicell. It appears from Gordon J’s reasons, however, that there were some differences between at least 2 of the trade marks registered in Australia and those licensed to Punch by Lonsdale UK. Although not licensed to it by Lonsdale UK, Punch nonetheless arranged to have those 2 trade marks put on the products the appellants imported and sold.

The Full Court (Keane CJ, Jagot and Yates JJ) has affirmed Gordon J’s ruling that the appellants infringed the registered trade marks in Australia for LONSDALE, but not for the reasons you, or the trial judge, might think.

The trial judge, Gordon J, held there were 3 reasons why Paul’s infringed:

32 There are three complete answers to this submission. First, for the reasons stated at [16]-[18] above, this construction of the Champagne Heidsieck principle should not be accepted. The reference to “registered owner” in the High Court’s statement of the principle should be understood to mean the registered owner of the Australian registered trade marks in question, consistently with the proper construction of the TM Act. Accordingly, the principle will only assist the respondents if they can show that Lonsdale Australia consented to the application of the Lonsdale Australia Trade Marks. Secondly, Lonsdale Australia (being the registered owner of the Lonsdale Australia Trade Marks) did not affix any mark to the Paul’s Goods. Thirdly, as stated at [27] above, it cannot be said that “a manufacturer [has put] a trade mark on his goods and [sent] them into the course of trade on the billowing ocean of trade … not telling any lies or misleading anyone in any way at all”: cf Atari 50 ALR 274 at 277. Here, the “manufacturer” of the goods (Punch) did not legitimately apply at least two of the three marks to the Paul’s Goods.

That is, Lonsdale Australia as the registered owner of the trade marks in Australia:

(1) did not apply the trade marks to the imported goods;

(2) did not consent to Punch applying the trade marks to the imported goods,

and Punch had no authority to apply at least two of the trade marks to any goods.

The Full Court – why s 123 did not apply

The Full Court, however, considered it was unnecessary to even address those questions. Instead, it said at [37]:

The consent given by [Lonsdale UK] to Punch on which the appellants rely was limited in its terms to “the non exclusive right to promote, distribute and sell Products bearing the Trade Marks in the Territory”. Whether one looks at the issue through a strict legal analysis of the Punch licence and the Punch-Unicell sales agreement, or from a broader commercial perspective, the use of the Lonsdale marks for the purposes of the sale by Punch to Unicell cannot be seen to be within the limited consent given by the Punch licence.

That is, as Punch had a licence limited only to selling LONSDALE products in Europe, s 123 was not even engaged. It was unnecessary to enquire whether the trade marks had been applied by or with the consent of the trade mark owner.

By dealing with the issue in this way, the Full Court avoided having to deal with the question (1) whether the common ownership of both Londsdale UK and Lonsdale Australia as members of the same corporate group was a sufficient basis to infer consent to the application of the LONSDALE trade marks to the goods imported by Paul’s.

Given (absent imputed consent through the corporate relationship) at least some of the trade marks applied by Punch to the Paul’s goods were not licensed to Punch by Lonsdale UK, one may wonder why the Full Court took its approach. If Punch’s licence had not been limited territorially, would the Full Court have imputed consent on the basis of the corporate relationship?

The Full Court’s approach to the scope of Punch’s consent is similar to the way the Courts deal with implied consent in the context of patents.[1] Accordingly, before one even considers whether the consent of the registered owner of the trade mark may be invoked under s 123, it will be necessary for a prospective parallel importer to ascertain the scope of the licence given to the licensee from whom the goods are sourced.

That this is a deliberate choice by the Full Court is reinforced by the Court’s express denial at [51] of any relevance to the interpretation of s 123 by reference to the doctrine of exhaustion. That rejection may be thought somewhat surprising as s 123 was enacted to implement the recommendation of the Working Party to give statutory force to the doctrine of exhaustion:

A majority of the comments received were in favour of the exhaustion of rights doctrine.. Questions were raised as to whether or not the mark was applied with or without the consent of the proprietor and whether the goods were materially different form the local goods. It was considered preferable that argument on these issues take place in the context of statutory recognisiton of the legality of parallel importation.

The Champagne Heidsieck principle

The Full Court also rejected the appellants’ attempted reliance on the so-called Champagne Heidsieck[2] principle. As re-formulated by the High Court in Gallo at [34]:

a trade mark is not infringed by a third party importing, offering for sale and selling, without the owner’s consent, goods to which the registered owner (or its licensee) has affixed the mark….

Gordon J’s reasoning at first instance avoided this principle since the registered owner, Lonsdale Australia, had never consented to anything Punch did or arranged.

Having noted there were difficulties in articulating how the Champagne Heidsieck[2] principle could apply in the context of the Act and particularly s 123, the Full Court at [64] considered that, if s 123 did not save the appellants, there was no other principle that could help them. However, the Full Court went on to reject the argument that:

the importation and sale of goods marked with the consent of the owner of the trade mark or its licensee does not involve a use of the trade mark by the importer or seller.

The Full Court rejected this argument at [65]:

If this argument were correct, an importer would not infringe the trade mark merely by acts of importation and sale even if the mark had been applied to the goods without the consent of the owner of the trade mark. This Court has previously expressed the view that “…absent s 123 the mere sale by an importer of goods already marked would be an infringing use of the mark by the importer”: See E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 175 FCR 386 at [58]; quoted in Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd (2012) 202 FCR 286 at [66]; see also Transport Tyre Sales at [94].[3]

Although the Full Court appears to treat this part of the appellants’ argument separately to the Champagne Heidsieck[2] principle, it is with respect difficult to see any difference between the two arguments.

It could be argued that the situation addressed by the Champagne Heidsieck principle is very different to that where the goods imported are not genuine. As the Full Court noted at [66], however, support for the view taken by, now, 3 Full Courts can be found in the observation of Aickin J in Pioneer,  which itself seems difficult to reconcile with s 7(3).

It therefore appears clear, failing intervention by the High Court, that the Champagne Heidsieck[2] principle is no longer applicable in Australian law.

One consequence of this appears to be that a provision intended to entrench the rights of parallel importers may well have made it much more difficult to engage in parallel importing.

More importantly, the Champagne Heidsieck[2] principle can be seen as an emanation of what US trade mark lawyers call “nominative use” or “nominative fair use”: one did not use a trade mark as a trade mark by using it to identify the goods or services marked with the trade mark by the trade mark owner. So, for example, under the old Act the Full Court held it was not use the trade mark ROLLING STONES as a trade mark to sell bootleg recordings of the Rolling Stones performing by reference to the name ROLLING STONES. Does the enactment of s 123 mean that principle is no longer applicable?

Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130

Share on Facebook

Dr Summerfield has updated his marked up version of the reg.s to reflect the second tranche of the exposure draft regulations, here.

He also draws attention to the shortening time frames the exposure draft regulations will introduce.

You still need to get your comments in by 21 November 2012.

Share on Facebook

IP Australia today released the second tranche of exposure draft regulations implementing the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012.

This tranche deals with schedule 3 (reducing delays in resolving patent and trade mark applications) and schedule 6 (simplifying the IP system).

Comments still need to be submitted by 21 November 2012.

Go here, and scroll down (past the first tranche if you already have them).

Dr Summerfield prepared a marked up version of the regs as the first tranche would amend them and discussed the new search fee implications.

Share on Facebook

Having previously announced the conclusion that the Tobacco Plain Packaging laws were valid, today the High Court published their reasons.

6 of the judges, Heydon J dissenting, ruled that s 51(xxxi) did not apply because there was no “acquisition” of the tobacco companies’ intellectual property rights. It was true that the ability, or rights, of the tobacco companies to use their intellectual property rights was severely curtailed, if not extinguished. That was insufficient to constitute an acquisition in itself. But, the Tobacco Plain Packaging legislation did not appropriate those rights for use by the Commonwealth.

As a result, it was unnecessary to consider the Commonwealth’s further argument that, if there were an acquisition, it was justified and reasonable in the circumstances.

JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43

Share on Facebook

Mr Spagnuolo has been granted “special” leave to appeal to the Full Court from Reeves J’s dismissal of his opposition to Mantra registering Q1 for a range of accommodation, travel and holiday services.

Some background

Q1 is another one of those “iconic” high rise apartment buildings on the Gold Coast. Its 78 levels boast 526 residential apartments, a retail shopping plaza and a resort / conference complex.

In addition to operating the resort/conference part of the building under Q1 RESORT & SPA, Mantra also has arrangements for renting out 193 of the privately owned apartments.

Mr Spagnuolo owns two of the apartments himself and has arrangements to rent out a number of others’ apartments. He operates his rental business under the name Q1 Holidays Gold Coast and also holds the domain name q1holidaysgoldcoast.com.au.

Mantra’s predecessor applied to register 3 trade marks, Nos 1228706, 1228707 and 1228708 for a range of services in classes 36, 39, 35 and 43. (Not sure why they were in three different applications. has there been a change of practice about these things?)

The Registrar’s delegate had upheld Mr Spagnuolo’s opposition, but Reeves J overturned that decision on appeal.

Why?

While a party may appeal to the Court from the Registrar’s decision in an opposition proceedings as a matter of right, there is no automatic right of appeal from the Court’s decision at first instance. Leave is required: s 195(2).  It is fairly unusual for unsuccessful opponents to the registration of a trade mark to get leave to appeal to the Full Court.

One key factor in why Logan J granted leave was the legal point Mr Spagnuolo wants to run: he argues that Q1 is not inherently adapted to distinguish Mantra’s services as other people wanting to rent out their properties in the Q1 building will legitimately want to use Q1 too. That is, Mr Spagnuolo wishes to contend that Q1 is not inherently adapted to distinguish under s 41 because the Q1 building is not owned by one person. As a result of the disparate ownership of the properties comprising the Q1 building, therefore, Q1 may be the name of “a locality”.

According to Logan J and the parties, this question has not been the subject of judicial decision.

Another consideration was that there were conflicting decisions in the Office and at first instance, with the Registrar’s delegate allowing the opposition and Reeves J rejecting it.

After some rumblings about the potential for litigants with deep pockets to oppress those “not as well financially provided”, Logan J also pointed out that the parties had filed extensive evidence in the court proceedings, the benefit of which would be lost if Mr Spagnuolo was not permitted to appeal and was left to start revocation proceedings anew.

Finally, Logan J granted Mr Spagnuolo an extension of time in which to file his application for leave to appeal. Under the “old” Rules, an applicant for leave had 21 days to file the application. Under the new rules (in force since August 2011), however, applications for leave must be filed within 14 days. That wasn’t an obstacle in this case as Mr Spagnuolo’s advisers filed only 1 week late so there wasn’t really any special prejudice Mantra could point to.

Finally, Logan J granted a stay on Reeves J’s direction that the trade marks proceed to registration:

… Mantra IP has only briefly enjoyed the benefits of the judgment. Before then, its applications stood rejected. It was not greatly pressed, on its behalf, that there was any particular commercial harm that it would suffer beyond the obvious one of its position being unclear until there was a final judgment. It seems to me there would be much potential for mischief in the marketplace in the event that there were not a stay.

Spagnuolo v Mantra IP Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1038

Share on Facebook

IP Australia has published the first tranche of draft regulations to implement the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (most of which comes into force on 15 April next year).

This tranche includes the draft regulations for:

•  Schedule 1 – Raising the quality of granted patents,
• Schedule 4 – Assisting the operations of the IP profession, and
• Schedule 5 – Improving mechanisms for trade mark and copyright enforcement.

Comments should be submitted by 21 November 2012.

Download all the gory details, including draft EMs, here.

Lots have people have had a go at trying to explain some, or all, of the ramifications of the Act. If you don’t want to Google, or bing, or duck duck go, the EM can be found on Parliament’s site here and the Bills Digest prepared by the Parliamentary secretariat is here.

Share on Facebook

Quote from the High Court:

At least a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the Act is not contrary to s 51(xxxi).

Reasons (which may explain that rather cryptic quantity) to follow later.

So, by 1 December 2012, all retail cigarette packs in Australia will look something like this. – the colour is officially described as Pantone 448C.

Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011

Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011

Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Regulations 2012 – extending regime to cigars and tobacco pouches.

On the global front, Ukraine, Honduras and Dominican Republic have brought complaints against Australia before the WTO dispute resolution process and, so far, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Uruguay and Zimbabwe have joined in the consultations.

So far as I can work out, the arbitration between Philip Morris and Australia under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments has reached the stage where the panel of 3 arbitrators has been established.

Share on Facebook