So I’m watching a clever YouTube which Josh Gans points out has been annoyingly marred by a running stream of “subscript” advertisements.
On of the ads is for IP Mapping which seems like a clever description of patent searching. No doubt, I’m being a bit perfunctory here. Anyone know what I’m missing?
The Australian Government has announced that it will be fastracking new consumer laws protecting against unfair contracts, with the aim of the law being introduced in June 2009 and in force by January 2010.
David Jacobson has a detailed report with links to consultation papers etc. here.
Stephen King gets exercised about the economics here.
Whatever happened to that old case involving Fleetwood Mac and Clifford Davis management or Amadio?
Prof. Mark Davison reviews Bennett J’s recent decision allowing Pioneer, by an exercise of discretion, to keep its registration for , even though it had no use of, or intention to use, the trade mark in respect of those goods.
Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK [2009] FCA 135
Not using (but keeping) Pioneer Read More »
PAC Mining has successfully appealed the finding that it infringed Esco’s patents for wear assemblies protecting excavating buckets, but failed in its appeal against the finding that the patent was valid.
The point that mainly struck my eye was that PAC Mining’s independent expert’s attack on the patent as obvious failed:
The primary Judge took the view that the value of Prof Wightley’s evidence was compromised by reason of the circumstance that, from the outset, he had been exposed to the shortcoming to which Toplok was perceived to be subject, and to the terms of Jones I, as well as to those of the patents in suit. In other words, Prof Wightley, from the outset, knew the problem, and he knew the solution. The authorities make it clear that the caution with which his Honour approached the evidence of Prof Wightley was both justified and desirable: Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd [1977] HCA 19; (1977) 137 CLR 228, 242; Alphapharm 212 CLR at 423-424 [21]; Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] HCA 21; (2007) 235 ALR 202, 215 [46]. At this level of analysis, nothing put on behalf of the appellants on appeal has cast any doubt upon the approach which his Honour took. Within the confines of that approach, the matter of obviousness was essentially one of fact. We are not persuaded that his Honour erred in declining to be satisfied that Prof Wightley’s evidence, of itself, warranted the conclusion that the adjustment assembly introduced by Jones II and Jones III was obvious.
The Full Court went on to find no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the inventor’s evidence.
PAC Mining Pty Ltd v Esco Corporation [2009] FCAFC 18 (Sundberg, Jessup and Middleton JJ)
Leading the expert Read More »
This round of the litigation raise the question ‘Who is a person aggrieved for the purposes of seeking revocation of a registered trade mark?’
Health World isn’t, at least when it comes to Shin Sun’s registration.
Health World uses and has registrations for INNER HEALTH PLUS in respect of probiotic capsules and has a registration for ‘Pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use; products in this class sold by pharmacies and/or health food shops including vitamins, minerals, health foods, dietary foods, Chinese and ayurvedic herbs, and nutrition bars included in class 5’.
Shin Sun uses HealthPlus for products derived from bees, their wax and/or squalene (something to do with sharks) and its Australian trade mark registration is for ‘‘pharmaceutical products including vitamins and dietary supplements’ in class 5′. Shin Sun’s registration had 4 years’ priority over Health World’s.
Health World’s opposition to Shin Sun’s application having failed, it sought revocation on the basis of prior reputation (s 60 or via s 42(b)). This failed because, while anyone could oppose on the grounds of s 60 relying on anyone’s reputation, s 88 required an applicant for revocation to be an aggrieved person and this, in turn, required that the misleading and deceptive nature of the mark sought to be revoked must affect the application for revocation in a meaningful way – the legal or practical effect test from Ritz.
Health World failed this test because its established reputation was in a rather discrete field and there was no risk of overlap with Shin Sun’s own particular, narrow field.
Health World tried a number of arguments to avoid this conclusion, particularly based on the litigious history of the parties including Shin Sun’s own oppositions and other objections to Health World’s trade mark registration. These failed, largely because Shin Sun had withdrawn the objections by the time Health World launched its revocation proceeding or Shin Sun’s actions could be characterised as defensive manoeuvres in response to Health World’s attacks.
I’m not sure what the policy objective being served here is – as the Court notes, the requirement for standing is intended to keep out mere busybodies and officious bystanders. I guess, if there is no overlap in the respective parties’ business fields, the conclusion must follow.
As an aside, the Full Court appeared to endorse the trial judge’s finding that Shin Sun’s registration was vulnerable on the grounds that it was confusing – because the goods Shin Sun’s trade mark was used on were not Shin Sun’s but some related entities (see [18]). I’m not at all clear why that’s the case, but it seems very bizarre that a ‘confusing’ trade mark can happily be left on the Register?
Health World Limited v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 14 (Perram J with Emmett and Besanko JJ agreeing)
Health World v Shin Sun – round 563? Read More »
According to Excess Copyright, Amazon has backed down in its fight with the (American) Authors’ Guild and authors and publishers will be able to block the text to speech function if they want.
Links from Howard’s post to the Guardian report and Lawrence Lessig.
So the musing here is even more academic than usual.
From Peter Ollie at Managing IP:
Managing IP magazine’s Asia editor Peter Ollier will be conducting a live online interview with IP Australia director general Philip Noonan on Friday March 6 at 4pm Australian Eastern Standard Time.
The one-hour interview will cover topics such as the recommendations in Terry Cutler’s venturousaustralia report, innovative step and inventive step in Australia’s patent law, the controversial Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the impact of the credit crunch on patent and trade mark applications in Australia.
Registration for this event is free. To register please go to www.managingip.com/webseminars. Registered participants will also be able to submit questions.
Philip Noonan live interview Read More »
IPKat reports that the case in Eire in which the record companies sued the ISP, Eirecom, has settled after 8 days of the scheduled 4 weeks of trial.
Amongst other details, the ISP adopted a 3 strikes policy and the record companies deployed a service to monitor (entrap?) file”sharers”.
Read more here.
Some other background and 3 other strikes here, here, here and here.
Irish ISP and 3 strikes Read More »
The House Committee report into this bill has now been published.
Background and potted summary here and here.
There are 9 principal recommendations including introduction of an “opt out” clause for artists,
and some rather novel recommendations in relation to the treatment of aboriginal or indigenous artists.
Lid dip, Copyright Council.
x
Resale royalty bill Read More »
IP Austraia is seeking applications from registered patent attorneys and/or trade mark attorneys for appointment to its IP Professionals Forum.
According to the blurb, the IP Professionals Forum:
The IP Professionals Forum is the principal forum for consultation, discussion and information exchange on IP matters that relate to IP professionals.
Meetings will allow for high-level discussion on IP policy, IP management, innovation and the broader IP environment, both in Australia and abroad. Participants will also be notified of IP Australia’s initiatives and consulted on future activities.
The forum meets biannually. The appointment will be for a term of 2 to 3 years. You have to be prepared to fund your own travel – to Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney depending on where the meeting is.
Oh yes, you will be ineligible if you are already represented by an IP professional association including IPTA, LESANZ, LCA and FICPI. Does that leave anyone left?
More details via here.
IP Professionals Forum Read More »
