IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

NZexit?

The Commerce Select committee of the NZ Parliament has recommended that NZ should not continue with the proposed Single Application and Examination Processes for patent applications in both Australia and NZ. The committee, however, did support continuing with the single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime.

As IP Australia points out, Australia passed the IP Laws Amendment Act 2015 to implement this process. The Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Bill was introduced into the NZ Parliament last year.

The NZ government’s response to the recommendation is not known at this stage.

A trade mark licence requires actual control

The Full Federal Court has held that the licensor must actually exercise control over the licensee for a trade mark licence to be a valid licence.

The decision is part of a long running global battle between WILD TURKEY and WILD GEESE. The WILD TURKEY interests own and use WILD TURKEY around the world for bourbon whiskey; the WILD GEESE interests use, or want to use, WILD GEESE around the world for Irish whiskey. Instead of the usual battle about who was first to file and whether or not WILD TURKEY was confusingly similar to WILD GEESE or vice versa, there was an unusual twist in this fight: WILD TURKEY tried an end run, tacking on to a registration for WILD GEESE WINES.

Some background

A Mr O’Sullivan QC (and his partners) had established a winery in South Australia under the name WILD GEESE WINES (WGW) in 2000. In due course, WGW set out to register their trade mark. However, the WILD GEESE interests had already registered their trade mark in Australia for whiskey. It was cited against the WGW application and in 2005, WGW brought an application against the WILD GEESE interests’ registration to remove it for non-use. The WILD TURKEY interests had also brought a non-use action against the WILD GEESE interests’ registration.

Mr O’Sullivan (and partners) quickly came to the realisation that they did not to become embroiled in the intergalactic war being waged between WILD TURKEY and WILD GEESE whiskey. Instead, in 2007 WGW assigned its trade mark application and the benefit of its non-use application to the WILD TURKEY interests in return for an exclusive licence to use the trade mark in Australia for wine.

The non-use applications against the WILD GEESE interests’ trade mark was successful and the (now) WILD TURKEY interests registered the WILD GEESE WINES trade mark for wine and spirits that WGW had assigned to them.

In a case of sauce for the goose potentially being sauce also for the turkey, the WILD GEESE interests then brought an application to remove the WGW trade mark for non-use. The WILD TURKEY interests sought to defend that claim on the basis that the use of the trade mark by WGW was authorised use under the Act and so constituted use in the relevant period by the WILD TURKEY interests[1] as registered owner sufficient to defeat the non-use application.

As the removal application by the WILD GEESE interests was filed on 27 September 2010, the three year period in which the WILD TURKEY interests had to show use as a trade mark in good faith ran from 27 August 2007 to 27 August 2010.

Unfortunately for the WILD TURKEY interests, there were a few wrinkles.

WGW produced a merlot under its trade mark in 2004. Due to adverse climate conditions, it did not produce another vintage until 2011. However, wine from the 2004 vintage was for sale (and was sold) in relatively small batches during the non-use period.

Mr O’Sullivan (and his partners) realised that a valid trade mark licence required that the licensee’s use be under the licensor’s control. To that end, Mr O’Sullivan proposed quality control ‘conditions’ for inclusion in the licence:

  • WGW’s wines had to be of sufficient quality to qualify for an export licence from the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation;
  • WGW had to supply samples of their wine to the WILD TURKEY interests if requested to do so.

Notwithstanding this, the licence arrangements did not have any practical effect on WGW’s operations and the WILD TURKEY interests never requested samples until after the WILD GEESE interests brought their non-use application.

The Registrar upheld the removal application. On appeal, Perram J considered that the Full Court’s decision in Yau Entertainment bound him to find that the possibility of control being exercised was sufficient for a valid licence and so, very reluctantly, allowed WILD TURKEY’s appeal.

The Full Court’s decision

All five judges considered that Yau Entertainment did not rule that the potential for the exercise of control by the licensor was sufficient for authorised use under the Act.

Control

Besanko J gave the leading judgment with which Allsop CJ and Nicholas J agreed.

After a detailed review of the legislative history and the case law, Besanko J concluded at [95] – [98] that “control” for the purposes of s 8 meant actual control. At [95]:

The meaning of “under the control of” in s 8 is informed by the principle stated by Aickin J in Pioneer, that is to say, that the trade mark must indicate a connection in the course of trade with the registered owner. The connection may be slight, such as selection or quality control or control of the user in the sense in which a parent company controls a subsidiary. It is the connection which may be slight. Aickin J was not saying the selection or quality control or financial control which may be slight. I think the principle stated by Aickin J informs the meaning of “under the control of” ….

His Honour acknowledged at [98] that whether there was actual control was a question of fact and degree, but “there must be control as a matter of substance.”

His Honour recognised that this conclusion was different to the conclusion reached under the Trade Marks Act 1994 by the House of Lords in Scandecor. That however was because UK law had taken a different course under the influence of EU law. Similarly, the CJEU’s decision in Ideal-Standard [2] was directed to a very different issue: exhaustion of rights.

WILD TURKEY did not actually exercise control

Besanko J went on to find that the WILD TURKEY interests did not actually exercise control over WGW’s use of the trade mark. Bearing in mind that it was a question of fact and degree, his Honour considered the most significant factor was that the licence arrangement had no practical effect on how WGW conducted itself.

At [107]:

The quality control provision in the Licence Agreement is that the wine be of a sufficient standard to obtain the approval for export of the AWBC. There was no evidence of the precise content of that standard. It was not an exacting standard as the approval rate shows (at [51] above).[3] The primary judge considered that the standard involved no more than a rejection of what he called truly undrinkable wine (at [55]). It is plain that the standard had no effect on Mr O’Sullivan’s wine making practices. He was interested in making good to high quality wine. At no time during the relevant period did [WILD TURKEY] contact Mr O’Sullivan about the wine he was making or selling or both. There was never any request by [WILD TURKEY] for samples under cl 3.1 or for the product to be supplied to the Australian Wine Research Institute under cl 3.2. [WILD TURKEY] never asked Mr O’Sullivan for any information about the use of the trade marks or Mr O’Sullivan’s wine making operations generally. There was no monitoring by [WILD TURKEY] and nothing to suggest that [WILD TURKEY] took steps to ascertain whether the terms in cl 3 were being complied with. I do not think s 8(3) was satisfied by the existence of cl 3 in the Licence Agreement.

The conditions in the licence that WGW could use the trade mark only for wine it manufactured and only on wines sold in Australia were restrictions, but they were not restrictions that went to the quality of what was produced necessary to maintain the connection in the course of trade with the (putative) licensor. At [108], his Honour explained:

…. These are restrictions but not ones like controls on quality or manufacturing process which might suggest a connection between the registered owner and the use of the trade marks in connection with the provision or dealing with goods in the course of trade. There is no evidence that [WILD TURKEY] monitored or informed itself as to whether WGW was only selling Australian wine in Australia. These requirements do not give rise to control. WGW was not permitted to amend or abbreviate the trade marks or use them in a scandalous fashion. These provisions seem to me to be standard provisions to be expected in a licence agreement for trade marks. There is no evidence of monitoring by [WILD TURKEY] of these provisions and they do not amount to control within s 8. Finally, the provision about standard liability insurance and [WILD TURKEY]’ ability to terminate the Licence Agreement for a material breach is not sufficient to constitute control under s 8 of the Act.

Thus, the use by WGW was not authorised use and the registrations for WILD GEESE for wines should be removed for non-use.

Some other points

Nicholas J agreed with Besanko J’s reasons. Nicholas J also pointed out that the use which would defeat a non-use application under s 92 had to be use as a trade mark in good faith. His Honour considered that the failure by the WILD TURKEY interests to exercise actual control over WGW would be a factor disqualifying that use from being use in good faith. As this line of attack was not actually argued by the WILD GEESE interests, his Honour did not decide the case on this basis. nonetheless at [132], his Honour said:

However, in considering whether or not the registered owner has exercised sufficient control over another person’s use of a mark so as to defeat an attack on the grounds of non-use, it is important to recognise that the boundary between “use” and “use in good faith” by the registered owner cannot be defined by a bright line. This is because the question whether there has been any use by the registered owner may itself depend on whether the control it is said to have exercised was real or genuine control as opposed to something that was merely token or colourable.

Allsop CJ agreed with both Besanko J and Nicholas J.

Katzmann J also found that authorised use required the licensor actually to exercise control over the licensee. That had plainly not happened in this case. Her Honour did accept that the WILD TURKEY interests’ request for samples in 2011 (after the non-use period and after the WILD GEESE interests had filed their non-use application) could lead to ‘a “‘retrospectant’ circumstantial inference”’[4] that control was actually exercised. But the inference that control had not been exercised was also open and, as the WILD TURKEY interests had not shown the inference they contended for was more probable than not, they would still lose. Her Honour pointed out that the wine show medals that the WILD TURKEY interests relied on to support the good quality of the wines did not survive scrutiny. The judges’ comments at the wine shows included:

Very disappointing class with no highlights. From this class it would appear to be unsuited to the region. No wines showed any varietal character or even just brightness of fruit and character.

Perhaps more importantly, there was no evidence that the WILD TURKEY interests had any idea that WGW’s wines had won any medals or whether the wine was of good, bad or indifferent quality.

Greenwood J also concurred in the result, but was not prepared to condemn the licensing arrangements between the WILD TURKEY interests and WGW in the strong terms used by the trial judge.

Wrap up

So, if you are acting for a trade mark licensor, make sure that it actually exercises control over its licensee(s). And, at least when the control relied on is quality control, make sure the control goes to the quality of the goods or services provided under the licence. The use won’t be authorised use otherwise. In that case, the licensor won’t be able to rely on it to defeat a non-use application as in this case. Even if that is not a risk, there will also be the danger that use which is not authorised use may render the trade mark deceptive and liable to cancellation.

If you have a comment or a question, please feel free to post it in the comments section. Or, if you would prefer, email me.

Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America LLC [2016] FCAFC 92 reversing Skyy Spirits LLC v Lodestar Anstalt [2015] FCA 509


  1. Section 7(3).  ?
  2. IHT Internationale Heitztechnik GmbH & Anor v Ideal-Standard GmbH & Anor [1994] 1 ECR 2789.  ?
  3. In the year ending 30 June 2010, only 40 wines out of 18,019 wines tested ultimately failed to receive export approval, and the figure in the following year was 43 wines out of 14,569 wines tested.  ?
  4. Referring to Heydon J at [76] in Gallo.  ?

Selected links from the last week

I am going to try an experiment. With the rise of “week in review” style blogposts and your day job probably means you don’t have all day to watch Twitter streaming by, here is a selection of links to IP-related matters I found interesting this week:

Patents

Trade marks

  • MACCOFFEE? We’re not lovin’ it, says General Court here

    The “Mac” family of trade marks are too well known for someone esle to register MACCOFFEE in the EU

  • “Own Name” defence in Singapore–when “honest practices” does the heavy lifting here
  • CJEU says operators of physical marketplaces may be forced to stop trade mark infringements of market-traders

    although you could contrast that to Dowsett J’s decision

  • Book Review: The law and practice of trademark transactions – A global and local outlook

Not categorised

  • Employees Bound By Clickthrough Agreements–ADP v. Lynch (USA)

Bit of a slow week in the northern hemisphere, but I hope you find some interesting. If you did or have a question, leave a comment or send me an email

Court of Appeal orders ISPs to block access to trade mark infringing websites

The Court of Appeal[1] has confirmed that the court’s general power to grant injunctions can be invoked by trade mark owners to get orders against ISPs to block internet access to website that have infringing content.

The interesting point (for Australians) is that, like Australia, UK law has a specific statutory power authorising injunctions against ISPs to block access only to websites that infringe copyright. There is no corresponding provision in the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK). Instead, section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (previously the Supreme Court Act 1981) provides:

The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction … in all cases in which it appears to be just and convenient to do so.

The IPKat has a preliminary summary here.

The main question the Court of Appeal’s decision raises for us is whether an Australian court might be persuaded to make similar orders against ISPs to block access to website which infringe trade marks (or other IP). Australian courts have powers to grant injunctions corresponding to s 37 of the Superior Courts Act.[2]

On the other hand, Parliament has also only recently introduced the specific statutory provision in the context of copyright infringement and that provision is tightly focused for policy reasons against overseas websites which have infringement as their primary focus.

And, it appears that the Court of Appeal was heavily influenced by the obligations imposed on national law by art. 11 of the EU’s Enforcement Directive to require ISPs to take steps to stop infringing activity. That specific legislated obligation does not apply here. That there may be different philosophies at play may also be seen in what appears to be the different approach in the EU to the liability of market operators for infringing conduct by stall holders.[3]

A second point emerging from a very quick skim of the 214 paragraphs is that Kitchin and Jackson LJJ held that the ISPs should be liable for the costs of implementing and maintaining the blocks. Briggs LJ dissented on this point insofar as it required the ISPs to bear the costs of complying (apart from designing and installing the software). As Jackson LJ pithily put it in agreeing with Kitchin LJ, that is “part of the price which the ISPs must pay for the immunities which they enjoy”. This may point up another difference in the legal environment: ISPs in the EU have assumed obligations to block access to websites such as those dealing in paedophilia. In addition, the safe harbours regime for ISPs applies generally, not just for copyright infringement as in Australia.

Finally, so far, there haven’t been any orders in the site blocking cases brought under s 115A yet.

If you have a comment or a question, please feel free to post it in the comments section. Or, if you would prefer, email me.

Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 658


  1. For England and Wales, not New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or ….  ?
  2. Australian courts have corresponding powers: for example, s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1977 provides “The Court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds, including interlocutory orders, and to issue, or direct the issue of, writs of such kinds, as the Court thinks appropriate.” There are, of course, counterpart provisions in the Federal Circuit Court Act and the State Supreme Court Acts: see Victoria and NSW.  ?
  3. Compare this CJEU decision to Dowsett J’s decision at first instance.  ?

The Government has published its response to ACIP’s Designs Report

On 6 May 2016, the Government published its response to ACIP’s review of designs law. Who knew?

ACIP came up with 23 recommendations. For the most part, the Government accepted ACIP’s recommendations. Those accepted include:

  • introducing a 6 month grace period before filing an application for registration, with a requirement that an applicant relying on the grace period provide a declaration to that effect (recommendation #12);
  • introducing a prior user defence (recommendation #12);
  • retaining the requirement of distinctiveness in s 19 in its current form (recommendation #10);
  • not introducing an unregistered design right (recommendation #22);
  • allowing amendment of a statement of newness and distinctiveness up until certification (recommendation #11 – “in principle”);
  • not extending the maximum term of a registered design from 10 years to 15 years unless Australia decides to join the Hague Agreement (recommendation #3) as to which IP Australia should investigate further and continue to monitor usage by our major trading partners;[1]
  • changing the name of a registered, but uncertified, design to something less misleading like “uncertified design” (recommendation #4);
  • retaining the current requirement that a design be registered for the whole product, while investigating further whether allowing partial product registrations would substantially advantage Australian applicants and does not give rise to substantial practical or legal issues overseas (recommendation #13);
  • take steps to make s 18 consistent with the overlap provisions of the Copyright Act;
  • correcting a miscellany of anomalies (including conferring power on exclusive licensees to being infringement proceedings) (recommendation #18), but aligning s 71 with the exclusive rights granted by s 10[2] is not necessary as the current position has not given rise to any problems and fixing the anomaly would create uncertainty and could have unintended effects (recommendation #17).

The Government has specifically rejected introducing customs seizure provisions for infringing products in line with the regimes currently in force for other intellectual property rights. This:

would pose a range of practical difficulties, and would be resource intensive for the Australian Border Force (ABF) to implement.

Moreover, design owners can currently obtain orders from the Courts which ABF could act on to prevent release of particular imported products.

A number of other recommendations were noted (such as requiring examination to be requested by the first renewal period and introducing an opposition system following certification). The Government considers action on these should await IP Australia’s further investigations into whether Australia should join the Hague system for international registration.

Another recommendation “noted” was the recommendation to improve the process for multiple design applications by reducing the fees. This needs to be considered “further in the context of IP Australia’s current fee review, to be completed in 2016.”

For the full response to all recommendations, go here (pdf).


  1. The Productivity Commission of course is going to say “Don’t do it” – much louder than that! See chapter 10.  ?
  2. Although s 10 confers the right to authorise exercise of an exclusive right, authorising someone to do an infringing act is not itself an infringement under s 71 and, of course, what is required for liability at common law for directing or procuring and infringement is so much clearer following Keller.  ?

Repackaging into tobacco plain packaging is still parallel importing

The Full Court has dismissed Scandinavian Tobacco’s appeal from Allsop CJ’s ruling that Trojan’s repackaging of various genuine cigar products into conformity with Australia’s plain packaging laws is legitimate.

Scandinavian Tobacco is the owner, amongst other things, of the Henri Wintermans, La Paz and Cafe Creme cigar brands. Trojan bought genuine products in Scandinavian Tobacco’s genuine packaging overseas. As that genuine packaging did not comply with Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws, Trojan removed that packaging and replaced it with packaging that did conform. Amongst other things, this involved Trojan placing The relevant trade mark – Henri Winterman, La Paz or Cafe Creme – on the packaging in the font style and size permitted under the legislation.

The Full Court considered that Trojan was using the Scandinavian Tobacco trade marks as trade marks within the meaning of s 120 by importing and offering the repackaged goods for sale. So Trojan would infringe if the s 123 defence did not apply. However, the s 123 defence did apply.

Use as a trade mark

Case law in the 1930s had established that using a trade mark in relation to goods to which the trade mark owner had applied the goods was not infringing use of the trade mark. So there was no infringement of CHAMPAGNE HEIDSIECK to import and sell genuine products marked CHAMPAGNE HEIDSIECK by the trade mark owner – even if they were a different quality to those put on the market within the jurisdiction by the trade mark owner.[1] Similarly, there was no infringement to use the trade mark YEAST VITE in the expression “YEAST TABLETS a substitute for YEAST-VITE”.[2] Numerous decisions of Australian courts under the 1955 Act proceeded on that basis.

The Scandinavian Tobacco Full Court agreed with four previous Full Courts that the introduction of s 123 into the 1995 Act – there having been no counterpart in the 1955 Act – has led to a change in the law. At [56], their Honours ruled:

In our opinion, under the provisions of the 1995 Act, a person who, in the course of trade, imports and sells goods to which a registered mark was applied by its owner at the time of manufacture will have used the mark as a trade mark. It follows that, on this issue, we are not satisfied that the position under the 1995 Act is other than as stated in Montana, Gallo, Sporte Leisure and Lonsdale.

As their Honours explained at [58]:

Section 123 of the 1995 Act gives the Champagne Heidsieck principle an express statutory footing that, in our view, leaves no scope for the principle to be given any more expansive operation by reference to cases decided under different legislation including Champagne Heidsieck itself: see Sporte Leisure at [71] and Lonsdale at [62]-[63] where reference is made to the difficulties involved, as a matter of statutory construction, in attributing to the Champagne Heidsieck principle a broader operation that travels beyond the scope of s 123. Under the 1995 Act, the question of whether or not a registered mark is infringed by the commercial importation or sale of genuine goods (what Clauson J described as “those upon which the plaintiff’s mark is properly used”) must now be determined by reference to s 123(1). If the respondent who is selling what are said to be genuine goods is held to be outside the protection of s 123(1), then the respondent will not avoid liability for trade mark infringement on the basis that he or she is not using the relevant mark unless there is something else about the context in which the use occurs that (as in Wingate) might lead to a different conclusion.

The Scandinavian Tobacco Full Court noted that was the way the English Court of Appeal in Revlon v Cripps and Lee Ltd had treated the introduction of a counterpart “consent” defence into the UK Trade Marks Act.

The Scandinavian Tobacco Full Court perceived a lack of enthusiasm for the “old” cases in the High Court’s decisions, such as Gallo, under the 1995 Act. In addition, their Honours noted their conclusions was consistent with the position expressed by Aickin J, sitting alone, in the Pioneer case:

Thus if Pioneer Australia had done no more than import the goods and sell them by retail it would have used the mark, but in fact it did much more as the evidence referred to above demonstrates.

There is no doubt that the Pioneer ruling was a landmark decision in Australia accepting the validity of trade mark licensing. For many years, however, Aickin J’s acceptance that a trade mark could be validly used to denote source in both the trade mark owner and one or more authorised users, rather than the trade mark owner alone, was considered rather problematical, albeit arguably contemplated by the definition of a trade mark under the 1955 Act[3]. That Janus-like approach appears very difficult to maintain in the face of the definitions in s 7 and s 8 of the 1995 Act.

Their Honours also noted the problems that defendants might have, bearing in mind the onus of proving the elements of the defence. However, they considered that the evidential burden could shift quickly as the trade mark owner would usually ve best placed to give the relevant evidence.

The s 123 defence

The Full Court upheld Allsop CJ’s ruling that the s 123 defence applied. Section 123(1) provides:

(1) In spite of section 120, a person who uses a registered trade mark in relation to goods that are similar to goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered does not infringe the trade mark if the trade mark has been applied to, or in relation to, the goods by, or with the consent of, the registered owner of the trade mark.

The repackaged cigars were goods which ST itself had applied its trade marks to, or in relation to. So the requirements of s 123 were literally satisfied. ST argued, however, that s 123 applied only in relation to goods while the trade mark owner’s trade mark was actually applied to them. Once it was removed (such as by repackaging), therefore, s 123 had no operation.

The Full Court, however, pointed out that a trade mark owner could legitimately use its trade mark in relation to goods and did not necessarily have to apply the trade mark actually to the goods. Examples of this could be use of the trade mark on an advertisement or a document, rather than on the goods themselves. The Full Court held, therefore, that there was no express or implied limitation in the words of s 123. The temporal requirement in s 123 would be satisifed if at some point before the alleged infringer used the trade mark the trade mark owner (or someone with the trade mark owner’s consent) applied the trade mark to the goods or used it in relation to them. At [65], their Honours explained:

The language of s 123(1) refers to a mark that has been applied to or in relation to goods by or with the consent of the registered owner. The operation of the section is not expressly or impliedly confined to a situation in which the goods still bear the mark as applied by the owner. The temporal requirement of the section will be satisfied if at some time in the past, which may be after the time of manufacture, the mark has been applied to or in relation to goods by or with the consent of the owner. If those goods are later sold by a person in circumstances which involve him or her using a mark that was previously applied by or in relation to the goods by the owner then s 123(1) will be engaged.

Section 123 did not provide a defence to the type of infringement prescribed by s 121.[4] Therefore, the words of s 123 were not to be read down by reference to s 121.

The Full Court considered that Scandinavian Tobacco’s concerns that its goodwill may be harmed by Trojan’s repackaging exercise were not matters falling for consideration under the terms of s 123. Rather, such issues would need to be addressed through passing off and the consumer protection laws.

Passing off

The claim in passing off (and under s 18 of the ACL), however, also failed. The trial judge had found the repackaging did not misrepresent that Scandinavian Tobacco had repackaged, or authorised the repackaging of, the cigars. In this respect, Scandinavian Tobacco’s own evidence was unhelpful as it appears that Scandinavian Tobacco Australia itself had engaged in repackaging other brands of cigars for which it was not an authorised distributor.

Wrap up

I think this is the first case since Montana that has gone to trial which the parallel importer has won. Then again it is also the first case since Montana that actually involved parallel imports.

The Full Court’s interpretation of s 123 is at least straightforward and avoids the complicated notice procedure applying in the EU. The “new”[5] concept of use as a trade mark apparently introduced by the 1995 Act will mean some careful thought needs to be given to “old” cases on what constitutes trade mark use, unless the High Court becomes motivated to revisit the reservation left open in [33] and [34] of the Gallo decision. It will interesting to see if trade mark owners start to explore the use of conditions under s 121 or are willing to assign the Australian trade marks as in Montana in attempting to circumvent the operation of s 123.

Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 91


  1. Champagne Heisieck et cie Monopole SA v Buxton [1930] 1 Ch 330.  ?
  2. Irving’s Yeast-Vite Ltd v FA Horsenail (1934) 51 RPC 110 (HL), a decision adopted and applied by the High Court in, for example, the [Tub Happy][tub] case.  ?
  3. That definition referred to a mark used so as to “indicate a connexion in the course of trade between the goods and a person who has the right, either as proprietor or as registered user, to use the mark, whether with or without an indication of the identity of that person”.  ?
  4. Section 121 empowers the trade mark owner to impose condition which may run with the goods to prevent those subsequently acquiring them from doing acts in breach of the conditions.  ?
  5. Bearing in mind this is the fifth Full Court decision adopting this position.  ?

Copyright Wars

With the Productivity Commission purporting to be undertaking an “evidence-based”[1] review of intellectual property arrangements with a heavy focus on copyright, Rebecca Tushnet has a timely review of Peter Baldwin’s The Copyright Wars: Three Centuries of Trans-Atlantic Battle.

For my part, I thought the French and other “romantics” invented moral rights before the Fascists (but I guess we’ll have to read the book to see how that is supported).

When the book was published, the Economist starkly illustrated the tension between the “two” systems and Prof. Johns took a more cautionary view.


  1. For “evidenced based” policy analysis, see Nicola Searle’s review of another interesting book: Paul Cairney’s The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making.  ?

Calling The Pot Black

Vickery J has struck out parts of a statement of claim for misuse of confidential information and ordered that the plaintiff’s solicitors and barristers who have had access to the information be barred from continuing to act in the proceeding.

DC Payments is suing Next for misuse of confidential information. The two companies compete in supplying ATM machines to retail, convenience and hospitality venues and Next was set up by some disgruntled ex-employees from DC Payments.

Next’s General Manager, Bosma, emailed a spreadsheet of its customers to 2 other employees: Solomon and Whale. Like Bosma, Whale had been an emploee of DC Payments too. Somehow, Bosma’s email to Whale went to his old account at DC Payments. DC Payments’ General Counsel recognised the mistake and instructed her staff not to look at it, but to delete it. However, the email and the spreadsheet were included in DC Payments’ discovery and eventually information from the spreadsheet found its way into Annexures identifying misused confidential information in DC Payments’ Amended Statement of Claim and some particulars.

Next has successfully sued to have those parts of the pleading struck out for misuse of its confidential information.

DC Payments sought to argue that the information was not confidential as it could discover who Next’s customers were by going around to the shops and venues to see which ATMs were installed and by whom. That might seem questionable as use of the spreadsheet saved DC Payments all the time and trouble of going through such an exercise. Further, the judgment indicates that the information used from the spreadsheet was very much more detailed than just the identity of the customers. The Master Customer List constituted by the spreadsheet included some 26 categories of information in addition to the customer’s name, address and ACN/ABN. These included details such as the names and contact details of the customer contacts, the customer’s bank account details, the Next sales agent responsible for the customer, the number of transactions made a month through the ATM at the customer’s site, the rebates payable to the customer and the maximum withdrawls authorised for the ATM.

It would appear that DC Payments did not admit it had used the confidential information to prepare the Schedules and particulars in the amended pleadings. However, Vickery J found there must have been misuse. Essentially, the Schedules and particulars included information which corresponded to the information in the spreadsheet, including information about the Next sales representative for the customer which was not in the public domain, and DC Payments did not advance any evidence to explain how it had sourced the information.

Vickery J therefore ordered that the Schedules and particulars incorporating Next’s confidential information be struck out. This was ordered even though his Honour considered that DC Payments could have obtained the information in question through “well drafted interrogatories”. His Honour accepted that the relevant principle was that DC Payments should not gain any advantage from its breach of confidentiality. In addition, it was ordered to delete any electronic copies of the Master Customer List and destroy any documents which contained information derived from it.

Further, as noted above, Vickery J ordered that DC Payments’ solicitors and counsel who had access to the confidential information could no longer act for it in the proceeding:

Any lawyer or person within the organisation of any firm of lawyers engaged by DC Payments, or any counsel retained on behalf of DC Payments, who has seen or directly or indirectly made use of the Master Customer List, should be retrained from continuing to act or work for DC Payments in this litigation.

Presumably, armed with his Honour’s judgment, the first job for DC Payments’ new lawyers will be to draft the well-crafted interrogatories foreshadowed by his Honour. It will be interesting to see if such an application would be rejected by the potential exclusion through s 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) as, perhaps, his Honour warned at [83].

If you have a comment or question about this post, please feel free to post it in the comments section below or send me an email.

DC Payments Pty Ltd v Next Payments Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 315

A cylinder by any other name (except basket)

Beach J has ruled that there is no warrant for interpreting “basket” in GSK’s patent to mean “cylinder”, with the consequence that the patent was neither infringed, nor invalid.

GSK’s patent is “for a sustained release paracetamol bilayer tablet with a specified in vitro dissolution profile”. Claim 1 is as follows:

A pharmaceutical composition comprising:

a bilayer tablet having an immediate release phase of paracetamol and a sustained release phase of paracetamol,

the immediate release phase being in one layer and comprising from about 10 to 45% by weight of the total paracetamol; and

the sustained release phase being in the other layer and comprising from about 55% to 90% by weight of the total paracetamol in admixture with a matrix forming polymer or a mixture thereof;

said composition comprising from 600 to 700mg of paracetamol per unit dose and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier,

wherein said composition has an in vitro paracetamol dissolution profile (as determined by the USP type III apparatus, reciprocating basket, with 250ml of 0.1M HCl at 37C set at a cycle speed of 15 strokes/min) with the following constraints:

Ÿ 30 to 48% released after 15 minutes

Ÿ 56 to 75% released after 60 minutes

Ÿ >85% released after 180 minutes.

I have emphasised the word “basket” above because it is a mistake. It should read “cylinder”. It was also a mistake repeated in the body of the specification. Beach J rejected Apotex’ argument that “basket” was a reasonable option for use in a USP type III apparatus at the priority date. However, none of the expert witnesses had heard of such a thing and Beach J held that the skilled addressee[1] would have recognised it was a mistake and should have read “cylinder”.

Now, the High Court has told us that a patent specification is a document directed to the public, but it is to be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee. So, for example, Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said in Kimberly-Clark at [24]:

It is well settled that the complete specification is not to be read in the abstract; here it is to be construed in the light of the common general knowledge and the art before 2 July 1984, the priority date; the court is to place itself “in the position of some person acquainted with the surrounding circumstances as to the state of [the] art and manufacture at the time”.[2]

The courts have developed lengthy lists of propositions to implement that directive.[3] One of the propositions that repeatedly gets cited is the rule that you cannot expand or narrow the meaning of a claim by reference to the body of the specification. So, for example, the High Court in Kimberly-Clark itself helpfully said at [15]:

Where the question concerns infringement of a claim or the sufficiency of a claim to “define” the invention, it has been held in this Court under the 1952 Act that the plain and unambiguous meaning of a claim cannot be varied or qualified by reference to the body of the specification. However, terms in the claim which are unclear may be defined or clarified by reference to the body of the specification.[4]

How to reconcile the two?

Well, Beach J held that, notwithstanding the mistake, the words of the claim were clear and unambiguous and there was no warrant to substitute “cylinder” for “basket”. Warned by Apotex’ counsel, Ms Goddard, that the patent was a public instrument the amendment of which was addressed in the Act by a different mechanism,[5] his Honour summarised his conclusion at [14]:

No case expressly binds me to accept the result contended for by GSK. The hypothetical construct of the skilled addressee cannot be taken so far as to re-write or amend a claim of the specification. That conceptual tool has its limits. After all, the boundary constraint is that I am obliged to construe the claim as it is, rather than what it should have been. I accept Apotex’s contention. Accordingly, GSK must fail on infringement as claim 1 is the only independent claim. But Apotex and Generic Partners fail on invalidity.

His Honour elaborated on these conclusions at much greater length at [368] – [401].

Beach J’s rejection of the attacks on invalidity did not turn on whether “basket” meant “basket” or “cylinder”. Having found that “basket” did mean “basket”, the attacks on fair basis, sufficiency and lack of clarity necessarily failed. However, his Honour would also have rejected them even if “he had found ”some polytropic fairy dust“ could transform ”basket“ into ”cylinder”.

 

If you have a comment or a question, please feel free to post it in the comments section. Or, if you would prefer, email me.

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No. 2) Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 608


  1. or “person skilled in the art” to use the language of the Act in s 7. Section 40 wants the person to be skilled in the relevant art, but that shouldn’t be much, if at all, different.  ?
  2. The citations have been omitted, but they included Samuel Taylor Pty Ltd v SA Brush Co Ltd (1950) 83 CLR 617 at 624?625; Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 at 610; Sunbeam Corporation v Morphy-Richards (Aust) Pty Ltd (1961) 180 CLR 98 at 102; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 at 476.  ?
  3. Sheppard J referred to 10 in Decor v Dart. Hely J identified a raft in Beltreco starting at [70]. The Full Court was rather more succinct at [67] in Jupiters.  ?
  4. The citations I have omitted again include reference to Welch Perrin at 610. This rule is Sheppard J’s second proposition, referred to by Hely J at [74] and elaborated at [76] to [78]and the 4th proposition in Jupiter’s.  ?
  5. Presumably, s 104 and, in the court proceeding context, s 105.  ?