IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

IPRIA seminar on patent infringementi

IPRIA (Ass. Prof. Beth Webster and Kimberlee Weatherall) is holding a lunch time seminar reporting on the results of their survey of patent infringement in Australia: in Melbourne on 9 June 2009; and in Brisbane on 10 June, at the Blake Dawson offices in those cities. According to the blurb: One of the great unknowns of patent policy is how much infringement actually goes on, and how much of that infringement.. Read More

Working a patent for regulatory approvals

Patently-O considers a new Federal Circuit case in the USA dealing with the scope of s 271(e)(1) – a defence to infringement by working the patent to prepare regulatory data. It would appear that the defence should now apply in proceedings against imports before the ITC. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 119A (introduced with effect from 25 October 2006 following ACIP’s report) permits such activity where the working: is for purposes.. Read More

Dough Vo = no go

Arnott’s complained (e.g. here and here) that Krispy Kreme’s new dooughnut, the Dough Vo, infringed its trade mark for the Iced Vo Vo.  You probably had those marshmallow and jam concoctions inflicted on you as a kid. But the trade mark, No 864, which is just for VO VO has been registered since 1906 for biscuits. Krispy Kreme was reported in the press as saying it wasn’t going to back.. Read More

Beery barefeet on appeal

Curiouser and Curiouser! The Full Court has affirmed the trial judge’s finding that Gallo’s registration of the trade mark BAREFOOT for wine should be removed for non-use. However, the Full Court has overturned his Honour’s finding that Lion Nathan’s use of Barefoot Radler for beer did not infringe that registration (before it was removed). Consequently, the Full Court has found that Lion Nathan did infringe the registration up until the.. Read More

Is copying enough to infringe Down Under?

The Full Court (Lindgren, Goldberg and Bennett JJ) has allowed the appeal in Elwood v Cotton On. So, for example, contrary to the trial Judge’s ruling, Elwood’s copyright in this:   was infringed by this:    First, the Full Court agreed with the trial Judge that Elwood’s t-shirt design was properly classified as an artistic work and not a literary work nor both an artistic work and a literary work:.. Read More

Review cases handed down

On Friday, Kenny J handed down the 2nd and 3rd substantive design cases under the new Act: in Review v Redberry [2008] FCA 1588, her Honour found the design valid but not infringed; in Review v New Cover [20089] FCA 1589; valid and infringed including $85,000 damages (of which $50,000 were for additional damages). The judgments will no doubt be up on Austlii soon but, until then, students can download pdfs from.. Read More

%d bloggers like this: