IP Australia’s preliminary conclusion is that joing the Hague Agreement for the registration of designs will cost Australian consumers a lot more than Australian designers will benefit
Should Michelin’s “X” trade mark block registration and use of Continental’s “Xking” trade mark for tyres?
The European Commission has fined Google EUR2.43 billion (approx. AU$3.6 billion) for misusing its market power over internet searches.
Marks & Spencer has been found to have infringed Interflora’s trade mark in the UK by ‘buying’ ads triggered by Google searches for the keyword INTERFLORA.
While the European Commission is trying to reduce the number of licensors you have to deal with (and so reduce transaction costs), the Australian legislation as interpreted by the courts is causing them to proliferate: IPKat on Max Planck comments on draft directive on collective rights management Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited v Commercial Radio Australia Limited  FCAFC 11 Yes, I know the EU is grappling with territorial issues.. 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 European Court of Justice has ruled that human embryonic stems cells are not patentable subject matter in the EU. Article 6 of the Biotechnology Directive, 98/44/EC, provides: 1. Inventions shall be considered unpatentable where their commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality; however, exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation. 2. On the basis of.. Read More
For anyone who may find some value in them, I have posted the slides from my IPSANZ talk ‘Of Keywords, Adwords and Trade Mark Infringers at Slideshare.
Following on from the post earlier this week about the findings that AstraZeneca had misused its market power in the EU over Losec, the Full Federal Court in Australia (Moore, Jessup and Dodds-Streeton JJ) has largely upheld an appeal against the primary Judge’s decision to strike out a Statement of Claim. Unlike the AstraZeneca case, this case does not involve allegations of misuse of market power relating to a patented.. Read More
The Court of General Instance (formerly (?) the EU’s CFI) has upheld the European Commission’s ruling that AstraZeneca abused its dominant position in the market by practices designed to block or delay generic drugs competing with Losec from entering the market. The abusive practices were: submitting deliberately misleading statements to patent agents, national patent offices and national courts in order to acquire or preserve supplementary protections certificates for omeprazole to.. Read More