http://ipwars.com Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:54:58 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://ipwars.com Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:54:58 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://ipwars.com Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:54:58 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://ipwars.com/2009/06/30/parallel-imports-and-upc-codes/ http://ipwars.com/2009/06/30/parallel-imports-and-upc-codes/#comments Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:05:06 +0000 war http://ipwars.com/?p=846 extracts from the 11th Circuit's ruling in Davidoff v CVS, where the parallel importer was found liable for infringement by removing the UPC codes (which, of course, are not put there to detect parallel import leaks, but in case of product recall requirements). He appends the text of the decision. Off the top of my head, I don't think that argument would help Davidoff down here as s 123 operates on consent in respect of 'similar goods'. The 1994 Act, which never came into force and was repealed by the 1995 Act did make an attempt to deal with quality issues in s , but that ultimately fell be the wayside. What chance of arguing misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52?]]> http://ipwars.com/2009/06/30/parallel-imports-and-upc-codes/feed/ 0