IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Of flat nosed syringes or if at first you don’t succeed

Having had the interlocutory injunction he granted overturned on appeal, Rares J has now determined at the substantive trial that both of Glaxo’s syringe variants infringed Reckitt Benkiser’s “flat-nosed syringe” patent.

Coke v Pepsi – “second” look

Last week, Besanko J dismissed Coca-Cola Co’s claims that PepsiCo’s “Carolina” bottle shape infringed Coke’s trade marks, and was passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct.

Carving up an uncertified halal butcher

Perram J has awarded $10 nominal damages for trade mark infringement against each of Scadilone, White Heaven and Quality Kebabs, but $91,015 additional damages against Quality Kebabs.

Sanofi v Apotex – infringement

Sanofi v Apotex – infringement: The High Court overturned the rulings that Apotex infringed Sanofi’s patent for the treatment of psoriasis by supplying for treatment of RA and PsA.

The power of a registered trade mark

If you have tried to buy, sell or rent property in Australia in the last 10 years (at the least!), like some nearly 7 million other Australians you have no doubt come across realestate.com.au, the web-portal run by REA Group. Real One also competes in that space.[1] Bromberg J has held that Real One’s logos: did not “pass off”[2] REA Group’s logos: Nor did they infringe REA Group’s registered trade.. Read More

A designs case!

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). [1] At the time, it was the first fence panel.. Read More

Property in the proceeds of infringement

In a decision which no doubt has some further distance to run, Newey J (sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court in England) has ruled that the owner of copyright does not have a proprietary interest in the proceeds (read profits) made by an infringer of the copyright. Harris et al. are alleged to be the person (or persons) behind the Newzbin file sharing sites which, amongst other.. Read More

Apotex v Sanofi

The Full Court (Keane CJ, Bennett and Yates JJ) has unanimously dismissed Apotex’ appeal from Jagot J findings that it had infringed Sanofi-Aventis’ patents and copyright. Bennett and Yates JJ delivered a joint opinion, Keane CJ his Honour’s own reasoned opinion. Patent Sanofi’s patent had just one claim: A method of preventing or treating a skin disorder, wherein the skin disorder is psoriasis, which comprises administering to a recipient an.. Read More

Trade marks and survey evidence in Australia

Adidas is suing Pacific Brands, alleging that the latter’s use of 3 stripes on footwear infringes Adidas’ registered trade marks for the “3 Stripes” (the judgment doesn’t identify which trade marks or the Pacific Brands’ product(s) in question). Adidas gave notice under CM-13 (this is .doc download link, but the terms of the practice note are also set out in the judgment) that it intended to conduct a consumer survey. It would.. Read More

Scope of disclosure in an innovation patent

Patentology has a nice summary of the innovation patentee’s successful appeal in Seafood Innovations Pty Ltd v Richard Bass Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 83. One point: it seems like the disclosure in the body of the specification supporting the broadest claim was at a level of generality similar to that upheld by the High Court in the first round of Lockwood. Wonder how that will hold up for future application under.. Read More