IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

3 stripes v 4 stripes: the remedies

3 stripes v 4 stripes: the remedies – Robertson J has ordered a narrow injunction and reduced costs to 30% after finding 3 of 12 shoe styles infringed

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

The Corbys have copyrights

Various members of Schapelle Corby‘s family, like most other people who take photographs, do own copyright in the photographs they have taken and Allen & Unwin, which published 5 of their photographs in The Sins of the Father, has to pay damages for the unauthorised use of those copyrights. Buchanan J awarded: between $500 and $5,000 compensatory damages pursuant to s 115(2) for each photograph; and $45,000 by way of additional damages.. Read More

No damage for infringing copyright in questionnaire

Besanko J has awarded Insight SRC $32,510.00 for the infringements of its copyright in the School Organisational Health Questionnaire by the Australian Council for Educational Reseaarch (ACER). The award consisted of $10 nominal damages and $32,500 by way of additional damages. There are some interesting points about ownership, assignment and damages. The questionnaire consisted of 57 questions arranged under 12 headings or modules. ACER reproduced some 25 of these questions.. Read More

How much to pay for an infringement

Over at the Fortnightly Review, Ass. Pro. David Brennan takes issue with the economists who argued that Larrikin should not have been paid any damages for the Kookaburra infringements. The economists’ argument seems to have been that Larrikin didn’t lose any sales as a result of Men at Works’ infringements and so suffered no loss. Damages under s 115(2) of the Copyright Act are compensatory: that is, they are calculated.. Read More

2003 Designs Act appeal

The Full Federal Court (Emmett, Besanko and Jessup J) has dismissed Elecspess’ appeal from Gordon J’s ruling that it had infringed LED Technologies’ registered design for combination LED lights used as rear lights for trailers, trucks, buses, caravans and other vehicles. I think this is the first substantive decision by a Full Court on the new regime introduced by the Designs Act 2003. From a very quick skim, it seems.. Read More

boohoo.com v missboo.co.uk

Warren J has granted an interim injunction to Wasabi Frog restraining until trial the operation of an online clothing retailer. Wasabi Frog has traded since 2006 as an online retailer of young women’s fashion at Boo Hoo and Boohoo.com. It also has CTMs for BOO HOO, BOOHOO.COM and BOO. missboo.co.uk started up in September 2009 as an online retailer of women’s fashion, targetting the same demographic: 17 to 25 year.. Read More

Costs, (no damages) and IP cases

The Full Federal Court (Finn, Sundberg and Edmonds JJ) has clarified how FCR O62 r 36A operates in IP infringement cases. FCR O62 r36A provides that the costs of a successful applicant which obtains an order for damages less than $100,000 will be reduced by one third, unless the Court otherwise orders. Nokia had sued Liu for trade mark infringement arising from a customs seizure. The proceedings settled by consent,.. Read More

Injunctions or damages?

This week’s Victorian Reports publish a 2007 decision in which the Court of Appeal (Dodds-Streeton JA, Ashley and Cavanough JJA agreeing) exhaustively reviewed the relatively limited circumstances in which equitable damages will be awarded in place of an injunction. Now, the Court of Appeal was dealing with a question of trespass to land but, having regard to the House of Lords’ remarks in Fisher v Brooker, may be worth bearing.. Read More

$80,000 (USD) per download

In case your newsfeed hasn’t beeped you, the jury in Minnesota has awarded the record companies US$1,920,000 against Jammie Thomas for her 24 infringing downloads. That’s right, $80,000 per infringement. The original award, which the judge quashed “sua sponte“, was “only” $220,000. Presumably, there are going to be some interesting motions “non obstante veredicto“? Evan Brown has some links. The Age (lid dip Matt Bromley). Howard predicts (hopes?) this is.. Read More

%d bloggers like this: