IP Australia has released the Australian Intellectual Property Report 2015, with statistics on IP filings and grants and trends.
Dodds-Streeton J has ordered that City Beach pay Seafolly $250,333.06 by way of damages for infringing copyright in 3 Seafolly designs, including consideration of the copyright/design overlap
Transition period to register security interest claims over IP expires on 31 January 2014
ACIP has published an issues paper reviewing the operation of the Designs Act 2003 for the first time since it came into force.
The fifth decision under the “new” Designs Act 2004 illustrates the operation of that old principle: in a crowded field, small differences may be enough to confer validity, but equally small differences in the accused products will be sufficient to avoid liability. You will recall that LED Technologies successfully sued Elecspess (and others) for infringing […]
Nilay Patel at Thisismynext.com has embarked on an in depth examination of Apple’s new court action against Samsung. Unlike the spectacularly unsuccessful war against Windows (based on copyright and ‘look and feel’), this action involves: * patents; * design patents; and * trade dress. The “thing that distinguishes this case from Apple’s other actions against […]
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 […]
Global Brands is still suing YD Pty Ltd. The trial on quantum for infringement of registered design was almost due to start when YD applied to amend. After YD admitted it had infringed Global Brands’ registered design, YD discovered, over 9 months earlier, that Global Brands had entered into a settlement agreement with Pegasus/Coastal relating […]
Back in October, Jessup J found Chiropedic’s design for a mattress and base (registered under the 1906 Act) valid and infringed, by only 2 of a number of Radburg’s competing mattresses. The first point of interest is the impact of a statement of novelty. A second point of interest is the impact of trade variants […]
Technicon has lost its appeal from trial findings that it infringed both Caroma’s registered design for a toilet pan and the copyright in drawings in technical specifications. This was a case under the old (1906) Act rules. The trial judge found there were sufficient differences to avoid liability for obvious imitation. However, there was a […]