IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

A lamp lens too far

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 LED’s registered designs for a dual lens lamp, ARD 302359, and a triple lens lamp,.. Read More

DGTEK v Digiteck II

For DGTEK v Digiteck I, see here. Non-use Lander J considered that the goods covered by Hills’ registration should be limited as a result of non-use for the statutory period of 3 continuous years under s 92. One interesting point on this part of the case is that Bitek had sought removal of all goods in its original application for removal. It accepted that evidence filed by Hills showed use.. Read More

“right of repair”

The JIPLP blog has a succinct online article, by Brian Whitehead and Richard Kempner, analysing Floyd J’s decision in Schütz (UK) Limited v Werit UK Limited, Protechna SA [2010] EWHC 660 on whether a defendant’s activities amounted to permissible repair or reconditioning of a patented product or infringement.

Talk on keywords, adwords and trade marks

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.

Appeal sinks luscious LIPS

One month after the appeal was heard, the Full Court has rejected Nature’s Blend’s appeal that Nestlé used Luscious Lips as a trade mark. Nature’s Blend argued first that the trial judge had wrongly focused on the character of Nestlé’s use instead of the proper meaning of the Nature’s Blend mark. As the mark was registered for all confectionery, not just “lips”, it was said to be inherently distinctive. The.. Read More

The patent was valid, but not infringed

Foster J has ruled that Bitech’s patent for an apparatus that simulates log flames or coal fire in electric or gas fired domestic room heaters is valid, but not infringed. An essential feature of the patent was that the simulated flames resulted from reflected light, however, the alleged infringements used directly projected light, not reflected light and consequently did not infringe. The novelty attack failed because the relevant prior art.. Read More

2nd round consultations on IP reform in Australia

IP Australia has published a second round of consultation paper (pdf) on its proposals for reform of intellectual property laws and procedures in Australia. Topics covered include: Getting the Balance Right Exemptions to Patent Infringement Resolving patent opposition proceedings faster Resolving trade mark opposition proceedings faster Resolving divisional applications faster Getting the Balance Right Exemptions to Patent Infringement Resolving patent opposition proceedings faster Resolving trade mark opposition proceedings faster Resolving.. Read More

Linking should infringe?

Judge Posner (of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the USA) writing extra-judicially on his blog has stirred up a maelstron in the blogosphere with a typically  thoughtful and provocative post contending that linking to websites should be copyright infringement. (At the time of writing, there are only 211 comments!) Less contentiously (at least in terms of blogosphere reaction), Prof Becker’s reaction is that newspapers are doomed: That the.. 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: