IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Apple and Samsung in the High Court

The High Court has extended the stay on the Full Federal Court’s dissolution of the injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 for another 7 days.

Samsung gets Oz injunction discharged

The Full Federal Court (Dowsett, Foster and Yates JJ) has allowed Samsung’s appeal from Bennett J’s decision and discharged the interlocutory injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1. On a first read, it looks like a “close run” thing. It also appears the grant of (interlocutory) injunctions for patent infringement in Australia may well be increasingly influenced in the future by the sorts of issues highlighted by the US Supreme Court.. Read More

Apple v Samsung

Belated link to Bennett J’s reasons for granting the interlocutory injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab: Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164 It has now been reported that Samsung has appealed, with Gerry Harvey in support. Samsung is also reported to be bringing claims of patent infringement against Australia and Japan, although the patents it is asserting in Australia are apparently counterparts to the ‘frand’ patents which.. Read More

How wide should an injunction be?

Having granted summary judgment against Paul’s Retail for infringement of a range of fashion brands trade marks and copyright, Kenny J has now made orders for the remedies flowing from the infringements. One point of general interest was the dispute about the scope of the injunctions. Her Honour accepted that injunctions were a conventional remedy for intellectual property infringement and were appropriate for grant in this case, largely because it.. Read More

How wide should injunctions be

Following on from his ruling that Idameneo’s use of its trade mark breached its contractual obligation not to use a trade mark capable of being confused with Symbion’s trade mark, Jessup J has granted an injunction: The Respondent be permanently restrained, whether by itself or through its subsidiaries from using the Respondent’s Mark. Three aspects for comment: First, Symbion sought and his Honour refused to grant an injunction that Idameneo.. Read More

The penalty for contempt

Previously, I had noted that the remedy for breaching an injunction is proceedings for contempt of court. Tracey J, having found various respondents in contempt arising from breaches of injunctions made in 2004 not to infringe Ugg Australia’s copyright and trade marks in connection with the manufacture and sale of ugg boots, has now handed down the punishments: One of the individual respondents, a Mr Vladimir Vaysman, was sentenced in.. Read More

Not complying with an injunction

IP disputes often involve the (alleged) infringer providing undertakings or being subjected to injunctions to stop infringing the IP in the future. The sanction for non-compliance being (potentially) contempt of court. The long running Deckers litigation has now reached the point where Tracey J has found a number of the respondents in contempt of court for breaching undertakings and injunctions from litigation in 2003, 2004 and 2007. His Honour’s reasons.. Read More

Injunctions or damages?

This week’s Victorian Reports publish a 2007 decision in which the Court of Appeal (Dodds-Streeton JA, Ashley and Cavanough JJA agreeing) exhaustively reviewed the relatively limited circumstances in which equitable damages will be awarded in place of an injunction. Now, the Court of Appeal was dealing with a question of trespass to land but, having regard to the House of Lords’ remarks in Fisher v Brooker, may be worth bearing.. Read More

Spam Act

Logan J has granted an interlocutory injunction under the Spam Act 2003, pending trial for civil penalties. Apart from the fact that cases under the Act are not exactly thick on the ground, the debate in the case really turned on: whether ACMA would be required to provide an undertaking as to damages – in the end, it wasn’t; whether the injunction should take the narrower form of undertakings proferred.. Read More

Procul Harum: paler shade of white afterall

In its last ever IP judgment, the House of Lords restored Matthew Fisher’s claim to a declaration that he owned 40% of the copyright in Whiter Shade of Pale, after the Court of Appeal found his claim barred by delay. IPKat has an extensive post and explanation. As summarised by IPKat, their Lordships focused on the fact that Mr Fisher was seeking a declaration and not an injunction. In doing.. Read More

%d bloggers like this: