Court orders disclosure of confidential information to competitor MD to facilitate election between damages and an account
ACIP’s final report into its review of the Designs System has been published. The report is 70 pages (including annexes) – 43 pages for the report itself; and 23 recommendations. Key recommendations include: investigate joining the Hague system and, if a decision is made to join, extend the maximum term of design protection to 15 years; introduce a grace period of 6 months before the filing date, but require an.. Read More
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) has released an options paper for arising from its Review of the (Registered) Designs System.
The Full Court has dismissed both Bluescope’s appeal and Gram’s cross-appeal from the ruling that Bluescope infringed Gram’s registered design for the Smartascreen fencing panel.
ACIP has released an options paper on what to do about the innovation patent system and raised 3 options for comment …
Well, a patents and designs case, but really it’s a case about entitlement: Kenny J has upheld the validity of patents and registered designs for “beer taps” which one company in the Fosters group – Foster’s Group Ltd – applied for “most likely [by] mistake” as one of its subsidiaries, Fosters Australia, was the owner. Fosters Australia commissioned another party to design some new beer taps for it, on terms.. Read More
Jacobson J has found that Bluescope’s “Smartascreen” metal fencing panel infringed Gram Engineering’s Registered Design No. AU 121344 for a fencing panel as an obvious imitation. Perhaps the most interesting finding, however, is why the Smartascreen was not a fraudulent imitation. vs Gram’s design was registered in 1994, so this is an “old Act” case (invalidity here and infringement here).  At the time, it was the first fence panel.. Read More
Case C-281/10 PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic The excellent Class 99 blog has a summary focusing on the concept of “informed user”. The IPkitties are typically loquacious. Lid dip: Ray Hind
The Federal Court, Spender J, has allowed Courier Pete’s appeal from the Registrar’s ruling that, while Courier Pete owned ARD 310528, ARD 312217 and 312218 were owned by Metroll. Section 13 of the Designs Act 2003 prescribes who is entitled to a design. Collymore was employed by Metroll as its factory foreman making water tanks and the like. The Registrar found that it was no part of his duties to.. Read More