Love was not in the air – Part 2

In a previous post, we looked at why Perram J held that Glass Candy’s “Warm in the Winter” and Air France’s “France is in the Air” reproduced a substantial part of the musical work in Love is in the Air, but not the literary work comprising the lyrics.

A further set of issues his Honour had to untangle was which acts involving the streaming and downloading of Warm or France infringed and who owned those rights.

You will recall that Glass Candy are an American electronic duo based in America who, in 2011, released “Warm in the Winter”. Glass Candy wrote and recorded “Warm in the Winter” in the USA. They made it available for streaming and download on, first, the Big Cartel website and then the IDIB website.[1] They or their rights management agent, Kobalt, also made the recording available through iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Youtube, Spotify etc.

Subsequently, Glass Candy provided a version of “Warm in the Winter” to Air France for use by the latter in its Air France: France is in the Air promotional campaign. Until this litigation started, Air France used “France is in the Air” in TVCs and radio advertisements in 114 countries (but not Australia), posted the advertisments on its Youtube channel (which could be downloaded from Australia) and, if you rang up its office from Australia and all its customer service operators were tied up, for its “music on hold” service.

Infringement, or not

Having found that Warm and France reproduced a substantial part of Love, Perram J turned to determing which conduct engaged in by Glass Candy, Kobalt and Air France actually infringed any copyright in Australia and who owned those rights.

In summary, Perram J held that:

(1) the streaming and downloading of Warm from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites infringed the copyright in Love;

(2) the streaming and downloading of Warm from the streaming services iTunes/Apple Music, Google, Play, Spotify and Youtube did not infringe copyright as it was licensed; and

(3) the playing of France to Australians via Air France’s music on hold service did infringe, but the streaming and downloading via Youtube did not.

The infringing acts

The streaming of Warm to Australia and its downloading by subscribers in Australia entailed a number of acts:[2]

(1) the making and recording of Warm;

(2) the uploading of a copy of Warm on to the servers of each streaming service;

(3) the making available of that copy to be accessed by end-users in Australia;

(4) the streaming of the recording to someone located in Australia; and

(5) in the case of downloads, the downloading of a copy of Warm on to the end user’s computer (or smart device) in Australia.

Making and recording – the reproduction right

The making and recording of Warm and France did reproduce a substantial part of Love but, having taken place in the USA (or the USA and France), were not infringements of the copyright in Australia.[3]

There does not appear to have been evidence about where the servers of the streaming services such as iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify or Youtube were located, but Perram J was not prepared to assume they were in Australia. So loading the copy on to the streaming service’s server was not an infringing activity either.

Making the recording available to be accessed – the communication right[4]

Although storing the copies on the streaming services’ servers was not a reproduction implicating Australian copyright, Perram J considered that Glass Candy’s acts of communicating the copies of Warm to the streaming services (uploading them) could infringe copyright in Australia and the acts of streaming and downloading in Australia would be damage suffered by the copyright owner in Australia. At [376], his Honour said:

…. That act of infringement seems to me to occur by communicating Warm to iTunes (and if it had been proven the other online music services). That was the infringement. Each time thereafter that the streaming service raised revenue by streaming or downloading Warm that was evidence of the damage suffered by the Applicants or the profits made by Glass Candy. Viewed that way, whether the streaming and downloading of Warm from the online music services is a contravention is irrelevant.

From the context, however, it appears that that act of communicating the copy to the streaming service(s) was not an infringement alleged against Glass Candy. I am not sure how that “infringement” would work, however, given his Honour’s further findings.

The alleged infringements the subject of the proceeding

That left as infringing acts being pursued by the Applicants:

(1) the streaming of Warm to Australians from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites – an exercise of the communication right;

(2) the making of the copies of Warm by users in Australia from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites – an exercise of the reproduction right; and

(3) the streaming of Warm to Australians from the streaming services – also an exercise of the communication right;

(4) the making of the copies of Warm by users in Australia from the streaming services – (at [276]) an exercise of both the communication right (by the streamng service) and the reproduction right (by the end-user); and

(5) in the case of France, the playing of “music on hold” to callers from Australia.

These allegations gave rise two problems: (a) who was the owner of the relevant right and (b) what licences of these copyrights had been granted. The issues that arose are a good illustration of the kind of tracing the chain of title fun the long term of copyright requires you to engage in to make sure you have identified the right person as the copyright owner.

In summary, Perram J found that Boomerang had no standing to sue anyone for infringing the communication right as it was not the owner of the relevant copyright; APRA was. Boomerang was the owner of the copyright in respect of the reproduction right, but its interest was partial or concurrent with AMCOS’ interest as the exclusive licensee of that right.

However, the streaming and downloading from the streaming services, iTunes / Apple Music, Youtube, Google Play and Spotify did not not infringe as those services held licences from APRA and AMCOS for those acts.

The copyright and ownership – a chain of title history

Harry Vanda and the late George Young – the Easybeats, Flash in the Pan – composed Love is in the Air in 1977.

In 1978, they assigned all their copyright in the literary and musical works comprised in Love to Alberts.

Subsequently, in 2016, when Alberts sold its business to BMG, it excluded from the sale the back catalogue of songs written by Vanda, Young and a third member of the Easybeats, Stevie Wright. Alberts instead assigned these rights to Boomerang – a new company owned by members of the Albert family.

However, in 1972 Vanda and Young had become members of the Australasian Performing Right Society (APRA), the collecting society for public performance rights and, as it was before the introduction of the broadly based communication right[5] by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, the cable diffusion right.

When Vanda and George Young became members of APRA, like everyone else who becomes a member, they assigned to APRA the exclusive rights:

(a) to perform in public; and

(b) to transmit via a diffusion service,

in all of their existing copyrights and any copyright works made in the future while still a member of APRA.[6]

So, the rights in Love is in the Air assigned by Vanda and Young to Alberts did not include the public performance or diffusion rights, as they had already been assigned to APRA.

An interesting point to note here is that the assignment to APRA in 1972 was not an assignment of the broad communication right, as there was no such right under Australian law at that time. Further, the repeal of the diffusion right and its replacement with the broad communication right did not affect that earlier assignment. The earlier assignment did not catch, however, the broader rights encompassed in the communication right, apart from the diffusion service, when the broader right came into force as the terms of the assignment were limited just to the diffusion right.

After the assignments from Vanda and Young, Alberts had also entered into agreements which affected the rights of reproduction and communication.

In 1986, Alberts had entered into a licence with AMCOS granting AMCOS the exclusive rights to authorise the making of records from the Alberts catalogue, including Love. Over time this was amended so as to include the making of digital records. The exclusive licence included the right to authorise the making of reproductions for the purposes of broadcasting in Australia. There were, however, three exclusions from these exclusive rights: they did not extend to making reproductions for inclusion in advertisements, or cinematographic films for the purpose of being broadcast in Australia. They also did not extend to licensing a number of named record companies.

In 1992 and again in 2005, Alberts had also entered into assignments with APRA. The 2005 assignment included an assignment of the right of communication to the public (introduced by the Digital Agenda Act in 2001).

Finally in 2016, after the assignment from Alberts of its copyright in Vanda, Young and Wright works, Boomerang also granted an exclusive licence over its copyright to AMCOS and assigned its public performance and communication rights to APRA.

At [299], Perram J found Boomerang and AMCOS had mutually abandoned the earlier licence granted by Alberts and replaced it with the 2016 licence.[7] The 2016 licence granted AMCOS exclusive rights to authorise reproduction of Love to make records, for digital downloading and communication to the public. AMCOS was not licensed to authorise use of Love in advertisements or synchronisation into a film.

A summary

So, at [326] and [342] Boomerang had no standing to sue Glass Candy or Air France in respect of any streaming or the playing of ‘music-on-hold’ as APRA was the owner of the relevant rights.

Boomerang was the owner of the reproduction right (at [334] – [335], [342]), but its interest was concurrent with AMCOS as the exclusive licensee under s 119 and s 120. AMCOS of course also had concurrent rights under those sections.

Which acts of streaming / downloading infringed?

The straightforward case on infringement was the streaming and downloading from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites. The position of iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify, Youtube was complicated by licences those entities had from APRA and AMCOS.

iTunes / Apple Music, Spotify et al.

The evidence showed that sales of Warm through Apple’s services amount to $85.41 (although some of these were probably to the Applicants’ solicitors).

Perram J held that the streaming and downloading of Warm from these services did not infringe as they held licences from APRA and AMCOS which permitted these acts.

In January 2010, Apple Pty Ltd had entered into a licence agreement with APRA and AMCOS. By cl. 9.1, the licence was a non-exclusive licence to:

(a) reproduce AMCOS Works;

(b) authorise the reproduction of AMCOS Works;

(c) communicate in the Territory the APRA Works (including authorising their electronic transmission from Your Digital Music Service to Your customers);

(d) authorise Your Affiliates to communicate the APRA Works to customers in the Territory as necessary in the course of providing the Digital Music Service,

in the form of Downloads (whether by You, or Your customers in the Territory, onto storage devices) for the purpose of Sale or to complete a Sale, including in the form of Clips provided at no charge for the sole purpose of demonstrating the Clip to customers and potential customers of Your Digital Music Service …

Love was included in the APRA and AMCOS Works.

Perram J held that the rights to reproduce and communicate to the public included the rights, not just to reproduce or communicate the whole of Love, but also a substantial part of it through the operation of Copyright Act 1968 s 14. As Warm and France reproduced a substantial part of Love, they were covered by the licences. At [352], his Honour explained:

Because Love is in the AMCOS and APRA catalogues it follows that since 2010 Apple has been fully licensed to provide digital streaming and downloading of Love. And because the doing of an act in relation to a work is taken by s 14 of the Copyright Act to include a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work, it also follows that Apple has at all material times been licensed by APRA and AMCOS to make available for streaming or digital download a substantial part of Love. Of course, the Applicants’ principal contention in this case is that making Warm available for streaming or digital downloading involves the communication or reproduction of a substantial part of Love. However, it would appear that iTunes is lawfully entitled to make Warm available for streaming or downloading even if it does involve a communication or reproduction of a substantial part of Love. Consequently, the Applicants can have no possible case against Apple for making available Warm for streaming or downloading from iTunes.

Similar conclusions followed in respect of the other streaming services which also had licences with APRA and AMCOS.

As Apple did not infringe by streaming or authorising the downloading of Warm, so also Glass Candy could not be liable for authorising the (non-)infringement.

There was an additional wrinkle on this part of the case. Kobalt admitted there had been streaming from Google Play, Spotify and Youtube, but Glass Candy did not. Perram J considered the evidence did not actually establish there had been streaming or downloading from these services so, if the licences did not cover these activities, Kobalt alone would have been liable by reason of its admissions.

The Big Cartel and IDIB websites

The evidence showed that Warm had been downloaded 12 times for $11.50 in revenue from Big Cartel and only once from IDIB. There were also payments to Kobalt Australia of $266.60 from AMCOS and $366.43 from APRA. Warm was still being advertised for sale for $1 from the IDIB website.

The position of downloads from the websites Big Cartel and IDIB was straightforward. The evidence showed Padgett uploaded Warm or caused it to be uploaded and Ida No received payments from time to time from the sites. Therefore, at [348] they were liable for authorising the communications to the public and downloading from those websites.

The position of streaming was more complicated. Padgett and Ida No had licensed their distribution / streaming rights to BMI in 2010. APRA’s own records recorded BMI as the owner of copyright in Warm for the public performance and communication rights. IDIB had also licensed streaming rights in relation to its website to Kobalt US. At [390], this meant that the person liable for authorising the streaming from the idib website was either BMI or Kobalt US, neither of which was a party. The receipt of royalties by Kobalt Australia from APRA was not sufficient to find it liable for authorising the streaming.

I am not sure why, if Padgett and Ida No had licensed their rights to BMI or Kobalt USA, they were nonetheless not liable for authorising infringing conduct by those entities or authorised by them.

Air France

The case against Air France for streaming promotional videos from Youtube failed because of Youtube’s licence from APRA for the reasons Apple’s licences protected streaming and downloading. There was still liability for the music-on-hold, however, as Air France did not hold a licence from APRA.

Remedies

Glass Candy contended that any damages would be de minimis and so relief should be withheld.

At [432] Perram J rejected this argument. First, his Honour found that the copying of Love had been deliberate so the infringements were flagrant. That meant additional damages may well be awarded. In addition, his Honour anticipated that the compensatory damages award might not be so modest:

Further, whilst it is tempting to think that the damages might be limited by the apparently modest infringements I have found, the Respondents (other than Kobalt) will no doubt have to deal with a contention by the Applicants that their damages should be assessed on a foregone licence basis. Without wishing to lend colour to that contention, damages on that basis may not be so modest.

[Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability)][2020] FCA 535[8]


  1. Italians Do It Better – a record label jointly owned by Padgett (aka Johhny Jewel) and a DJ, Mike Simonetti.  ?
  2. Similar analysis applies to the uses of France by Air France which, additionally involved the transmission of France via a diffusion service to callers on hold.  ?
  3. As noted in my previous post, Perram J may have been interested in exploring whether or not an Australian court could hear and determine questions of infringement under US law.  ?
  4. Copyright Act 1968 s 31(1)(a)(iv): the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public.  ?
  5. Copyright Act 1968 s 31(1)(a)(iv): the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public.  ?
  6. Of course, that would not apply to copyright which had been assigned to someone else before becoming a member of APRA.  ?
  7. As Alberts successor in title, Boomerang was bound by the terms of the 1986 licence granted to AMCOS: Copyright Act 1968 s 196(4).  ?
  8. The applicants’ subsequent attempt to have the Reasons revised or to re-open their case was given short shrift.  ?

Love was not in the air

but don’t go humming (or whistling or singing) that refrain in public!

There are probably not that many Australians who aren’t familiar with John Paul Young’s Love is in the Air[1] either as a popular song from the 70s or featuring prominently in the movie, Strictly Ballroom.

Glass Candy are an American electronic duo based in America who, in 2011, released “Warm in the Winter”. Glass Candy wrote and recorded “Warm in the Winter” in the USA. They made it available for streaming and download on, first, the Big Cartel website and then the IDIB website.[2] They or their rights management agent, Kobalt, also made the recording available through iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Youtube, Spotify etc.

Subsequently, Glass Candy provided a version of “Warm in the Winter” to Air France for use by the latter in its Air France: France is in the Air promotional campaign. Until this litigation started, Air France used “France is in the Air” in TVCs and radio advertisements in 114 countries (but not Australia), posted the advertisments on its Youtube channel and, if you rang up its office and all its customer service operators were tied up, for its “music on hold” service.

Boomerang, APRA and AMCOS sued Glass Candy, Air France and Kobalt for infringing the copyright in the musical work and the literary work comprised of the lyrics of Love is in the Air in respect of only the streaming to Australia, downloading by customers in Australia and playing the music on hold to customers in Australia.

The making of the recordings in the USA, the streaming and downloading outside Australia and the running of Air France’s advertisements in those 114 other countries were not part of the case.[3]

Perram J has found that Glass Candy and Air France have infringed the copyright in the musical work comprising Love is in the Air, but the streaming and downloading through iTunes, Youtube, Spotify, Google Play and others did not.

Following the Kookaburra case, Perram J recognised that infringement required a three step analysis:

  • first, identifying the copyright work in which the copyright in Australia subsists;
  • secondly, identifying the part (or parts) of the allegedly infringing work which is said to have been reproduced from the copyright work – involving identifying some sufficiently similar matter which has been copied from the copyright work; and
  • thirdly, determining that the taken part (or parts) were the whole or a substantial part of the copyright work.

To these steps, one should also add two further requirements:

  • identifying the act or acts said to infringe and which right or rights comprised in the copyright that act (or those acts) implicated (e.g. reproduction or communication to the public); and
  • identifying who owned the relevant copyright acts

It’s a long story. Perram J devoted 434 paragraphs to get there. Given that, this post will look at why Perram J found Warm and France did, or did not, infringe Love. A later post may look at the untangling of the ownership.

Infringement, or not

The central question was whether “Warm” and “France”[4] reproduced a substantial part of either the musical work or the literary work comprised in “Love”.

Boomerang et al. contended that the substantial parts of “Love” reproduced in “Warm” (and “France”) were the music and lyrics (1) for the phrase “love is in the air” in (a) the first two lines of the verses and (b) the chorus and (2) the couplet comprising the first two lines of each verse.

In case you are one of those Australians who can’t recite it from memory, you will recall the first verse is:

Love is in the air, everywhere I look around

Love is in the air, every sight and every sound

And I don’t know if I’m bein’ foolish

Don’t know if I’m bein’ wise

But it’s something that I must believe in

And it’s there when I look in your eyes

At [83]: Perram J linked to an audio file of the first two lines.

The chorus is:

Love is in the air

Love is in the air

Whoa, oh, oh, oh

At [87]: Perram J linked to an audio file of the chorus.

Love in the single version released by John Paul Young runs for about 3:28. The phrase “Love is in the air” in the verses runs for about 2.2 seconds, appearing eight times for a total of 20 seconds.

By way of comparison, the relevant parts of “Warm” were the first two lines in two blocks:

Block 1

Love’s in the air, whoa-oh

Love’s in the air, yeah

We’re warm in the winter

Sunny on the inside

We’re warm in the winter

Sunny on the inside.

Woo!

Block 2

Love’s in the air, whoa-oh

Love’s in the air, yeah

I’m crazy like a monkey, ee, ee, oo, oo!

Happy like a new year, ee yeah yeah, woo hoo!

I’m crazy like a monkey, ee, ee, oo, oo!

Happy like a new year, yeah, yeah, woo hoo!

As published in 2011, Warm had a running time of about 6 minutes 45 seconds. The sung line “love is in the air” appeared in Warm at about 1:00–1:02, 1:07–1:09, 2:00–2:02 and 2:08–2:10 of the recording. His Honour linked at [95] to the audio files for the phrase “love is in the air” by way of comparison.

The musical work

A first point of interest is that Perram J accepted at [66] – [77] the musical work included the “instructions to the singer on what sounds to make with the mouth”. This included the sounds comprising the sung lyric including “the non-literary phonetic instructions”:

l?v ?z ?n ði e?, ??vri we?r a? l?k ??ra?nd

l?v ?z ði e?, ??vri sa?t ænd ??vri sa?nd.

However, it did not include the quality of John Paul Young’s actual performance (which was part of the copyright in the sound recording and the performer’s right).

Perram J accepted that the comparison between Love and Warm depended on aural perception and not a ‘note-for-note comparison’.

Applying the ‘ordinary, reasonbly experienced listener’ test, Perram J held at [99] – [104] that the passages in the musical work accompanying the phrase “Love’s in the air” in the Warm blocks was objectively similar to the musical work accompanying that phrase in lines 1 and 2 of Love’s verses, but not in the chorus. At [109], lines 1 and 2 as a couplet were not.

Perram J accepted that there were differences between the relevant parts of Love and Warm. The transcription of the respective scores were different, the difference in styles – disco vs death disco, the presence of a moving bass line in Love, but not Warm were, on the aural test, not significant. It was:

common ground that the vocal lines of both … comprise five notes, the first two or three notes … being in same pitch, the next note dropping down in pitch by a minor third, and the next note returning up in pitch by a minor third.

and according to the experts ‘the pitch and rhythmic content of the opening vocal phrase is notably similar’ between Love and Warm and that ‘there is a basic aural connection between this phrase and the corresponding phrases in Warm’.

At [110] – [202], Perram J considered and rejected Glass Candy’s claim that they were not aware of John Paul Young’s recording of Love before Warm was composed and had not copied it. Rather, his Honour found that they had deliberately copied Love in making Warm.

Perram J then held that the objectively similar part of Love copied into Warm was a substantial part of the copyright in the Love musical work.

Glass Candy argued that the musical phrase for “love is in the air” was ‘too slight and too mundane’ to be a substantial part of Love. It was only five notes in length, did not contain much musical information and, as Vanda conceded, it was a ‘fragment of a melody’. Further, it was too slight to be a copyright work in its own right.

Perram J held, at [205] – [208], however, that the phrase as a sung lyric was original and an essential part of Love, even if it was not a copyright work in its own right. The issue was whether it was a substantial part of Love is in the Air. Assessed qualitatively, therefore, it was a substantial part of Love.

Perram J accepted that the phrase ‘love is in the air’ is a common English idiom and that ‘by industrial combing of the archives’ examples of the melody could be found, but for the purposes of the musical work the literary meaning of the phrase was not relevant. The issue was:

whether the line ‘love is in the air’, as a set of instructions, sung by a human to that melody and with its accompanying orchestration is original. In my view, that question answers itself.

In undertaking the comparison, his Honour discounted parts of the musical work in Love not included in Warm, such as the tambourine track.

His Honour also considered that a cumulative total of the phrase occurring in Love of 20 seconds was not insignificant quantitatively.

The literary work

In contrast to his finding on musical work, Perram J at [216] – [219] rejected the case on infringement of Love as a literary work. The phrase ‘love is in the air’ as a commonplace was a famous idiom which nobody owns. It was not sufficiently original to be a substantial part of the literary work on its own.

Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535


  1. Which of course is really Vanda and George Young’s Love is in the Air performed by John Paul Young.  ?
  2. Italians Do It Better – a record label jointly owned by Padgett (aka Johhny Jewel) and a DJ, Mike Simonetti.  ?
  3. At [16], Perram J speculated this might have been because the action would “probably” have needed to brought in the USA and the potential for a jury trial might have been unattractive. There is a suggestion in his Honour’s reasons that he would have liked to explore an Australian court hearing claims for infringement under US law, presumably based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lucas Films v Ainsworth.  ?
  4. For present purposes, the main difference between “Warm” and “France” is that the latter substituted the word “France” for “warm” in the phrase “Love is in the air”.  ?

Trumpet blowing

It’s that time of the year again when IPSANZ’ annual copyright and designs update comes up.

This year it takes place on 30 July, online – for those of you on the eastern seaboard starting at 1:00pm.

Registration is free for IPSANZ members, A$50 for non-members in Australia and A$46.50 for NZ and international non-members..

For registration and other details, including times for NZ and the other states and territories, go here.

Ordinarily, I would say “hope to see you there!”, but ….

Still, I do hope you can join in.

US DMCA Safe Harbors Review

The US Copyright Office has published a report about its review of §512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act – the service provider safe harbors. (Australia has its own safe harbour provisions in section 116AA and following of the Copyright Act 1968 but, as their availability is limited to a much narrower classe of “service providers”, they have not proved of much interest.)

According to the US Copyright Office’s report, this is the first comprehensive review of the operation of the safe harbors in the 20 years since their enactment.

The Copyright Office says its report does not recommend any wholesale changes to the scheme. However, there are “certain areas where Congress may wish to fine-tune” the section to better balance its operation. There are 12 recommendations about:

  • the definition of service provider who may qualify for the safe harbors;
  • the requirements for a repeat infringer policy
  • what level of knowledge of an infringing activity should a service provider have before the safe harbor no longer applies
  • appropriate identification of the allegedly infringing content and its location
  • the penalties for misrepresenting infringement claims or counter-notices
  • the extent to which a rights holder must take into account fair use before issuing a take-down notice
  • the extent to which notification standards reflect current technological developments
  • the time frames for response to counter-notices disputing a take-down notice
  • the mechanisms for subpoena-ing service providers for information about alleged infringers
  • the scope of injunctions
  • possible non-statutory approaches
  • alternative stakeholder proposals including web-site blocking and notice and staydown proposals which the Copyright Office considers require further study.

In addition to the review of the operation of the safe harbors and recommendations, there are also chapters on how the “online ecosystem” has developed since the enactment of the DMCA and legal approaches in other countries including our very own “site blocking” laws.

US Copyright Office summary

Full Report: Section 512 of title 17, May 2020

The Commonwealth gets nothing on Sanofi’s undertaking as to damages

Nicholas J has dismissed the Commonwealth’s application for Sanofi to pay it compensation under the undertaking as to damages when Sanofi obtained an interlocutory injunction against Apotex’ plans to launch clopidogrel in Australia, but the patent was ultimately ruled invalid.

The decision is some 698 paragraphs long, so this going to be the briefest overview of some highlights only.

Some litigious background

Clopidogrel is a medication which can be used to inhibit blood clotting. Sanofi (then called Sanofi-Aventis) had patents protecting it around the world and had generated over US$1 billion in revenues. Sales in Australia being under Sanofi’s Plavix trade mark and BMS’ Iscover trade mark.

In August 2007, Apotex commenced proceedings for the revocation of Sanofi’s Australian patent.[1] Shortly after, Apotex also obtained registration of its generic version of clopidogrel on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. In September 2007, it then applied for listing of its generic clopidogrel in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), through which the Commonwealth government subsidises the price of drugs in Australia.

As it missed the cut off date for the next round of listings in the PBS, it withdrew that application with the intention of making a further application before the next round closed on 1 December 2007. An application made in the December round would be for listing on the PBS from 1 April 2008.

In September 2007, however, Sanofi obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining Apotex from importing or selling in Australia pharmaceuticals which included clopidogrel as their active ingredient. Sanofi gave the usual undertaking as to damages as the price for that interlocutory injunction.

At the hearing for the interlocutory injunction, Apotex also gave an undertaking not to make an application for listing in the PBS pending the outcome of the trial. Apotex did not obtain from Sanofi an undertaking as to damages for that undertaking.

At the substantive trial, Gyles J dismissed Apotex’ application for revocation and instead found that it had infringed Sanofi’s patent. In September 2009, however, the Full Court upheld Apotex’ appeal and ordered the patent be revoked.[2] Sanofi’s application for special leave was dismissed by the High Court on 12 March 2010.[3]

Sandoz obtained PBS listing for its generic clopidogrel on 1 April 2010. Apotex did not obtain listing of its product until 1 May 2010. So, in addition to whatever sales it lost between 1 April 2008 and the lifting of the injunction in 2010, Apotex also lost whatever advantages may have flowed from being the first generic mover.

Sanofi and Apotex settled Apotex’ claims for compensation on the undertaking as to damages out of court.

The Commonwealth’s claims

The Commonwealth also claimed compensation under the undertaking as to damages.

Its case was that Apotex would have been listed on the PBS from 1 April 2008 if Sanofi had not been granted the interlocutory injunctions and so, as a result of the interlocutory injunction, the price payable for clopidogrel:

(a) was not reduced by the statutory reduction to the Approved Price to Pharmacists of 12.5%[4] (i.e. in very loose terms, the Commonwealth paid a price 12.5% higher than it should have been on all sales of clopidogrel between 1 April 2008 and 1 May 2010);

(b) further statutory reductions of 2% each were not triggered on, respectively, 1 August 2009 and 1 August 2010; and

(c) additional price reductions consequent upon the triggering of a statutory price disclosure regime which should have occurred on 1 April 2008.

(From [653] in his Reasons, Nicholas J discusses various scenarios for the calculation of how much the grant of the interlocutory injunction cost the Commonwealth. The lowest amount his Honour would have found in terms of compensation was in the order of $15 million.)

To succeed in its claim, Nicholas J held (at [196]) that the Commonwealth had to show:

· Would the relevant loss have been sustained but for the grant of interlocutory injunction?

· Did such loss flow directly from the interlocutory injunction?

· Could loss of the kind sustained have been foreseen at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted?

Why the Commonwealth lost

The Commonwealth was able to secure a number of witnesses from Apotex. These included the managing director of Apotex Australia, a Mr Millichamp, whose affidavit evidence was to the effect that Apotex was committed to launch its generic clopidogrel in Australia if, having been notified of Apotex’ plans to launch, Sanofi did not obtain an interlocutory injunction.[5]

The problem for the Commonwealth was that Apotex Australia is part of a corporate group controlled by Apotex Canada and the decision on whether or not to launch the product in Australia was to be made by Apotex Canada – specifically its founder and managing director, Dr Barry Sherman.

The evidence did show that in February 2007, Dr Sherman did plan for Apotex to launch its generic clopidogrel in Australia if Sanofi did not get an interlocutory injunction against it. Over time, however, the situation developed further. For example, the evidence included an email Mr Millichamp sent to one of his offsiders on 27 June 2007 when it appeared that the TGA listing was imminent (emphasis supplied) which stated:

[redacted]

[redacted] If we are successful in avoiding an injunction we will plan to launch subject to Barry’s further advice / approval.

If anything changes I’ll let you know.

“Barry” being Dr Sherman. At [251], Nicholas J considered this email indicated that Apotex had not yet decided whether it would launch its clopidogrel product in Australia if Sanofi did not succeed in getting an interlocutory injunction to restrain it.

Secondly, Apotex appears to have been planning to supply Australia from US stocks, but the shelf life of those products would not extend beyond August 2008 which was not very practical – especially when the earliest launch date would be April 2008.

Thirdly, Apotex’ challenge to Sanofi’s patent in the USA had been rejected by the trial judge.

Fourthly, Apotex’ communications to pharmacies did not definitely commit to a launch of the product.

Fifthly, Apotex had not exposed its legal advice on its prospects so Mr Millichamp’s evidence that “we always believed that all of the claims of the patent were invalid”

are not persuasive in circumstances where any legal advice upon which such a belief was based is not in evidence particularly in circumstances where the validity of the US Patent had already been upheld by the US District Court in a decision that was later affirmed on appeal.

Sixthly, at the time of the hearing for the interlocutory injunction in September 2007, the judge had indicated the final trial of substantive issues would be heard in April 2008 and he would give judgment by August 2008.[6] That is, the trial would take place in the same month as the earliest date that Apotex could be in the market if it re-submitted its PBS application before 1 December 2007.

In these circumstances, Nicholas J considered at [286]:

In the absence of evidence from Dr Sherman, I am not persuaded that he would have authorised a launch at risk in circumstances where an interlocutory injunction had been refused, but a final hearing was fixed to commence on 28 April 2008. ….

Rather, Nicholas J considered there was every reason for Dr Sherman to have deferred Apotex’ decision whether to launch or not until the last possible moment.

At this point, the failure (or inability) of the Commonwealth to call Dr Sherman as a witness became decisive all the more so as the Commonwealth was able to produce for cross-examination other Apotex witnesses who did travel from Canada and India. Nicholas J concluded at [347] – [349]:

I conclude that Dr Sherman was a witness who I would have expected to have been available to the Commonwealth and who would have had a close knowledge of relevant facts. In circumstances where the Commonwealth’s decision not to call Dr Sherman was wholly unexplained, I infer that the Commonwealth chose not to call him because it considered that his evidence would not have assisted its case.

I am not prepared to infer, based on the 20 February 2007 email, or any of the subsequent correspondence in evidence which was said to justify the drawing of such an inference, that Dr Sherman was likely to have instructed Mr Millichamp to procure the listing of Apotex’s clopidogrel products with effect from 1 April 2008.

In my opinion, the Commonwealth’s case suffers from an evidentiary deficiency which cannot be made good by drawing inferences from correspondence written by Dr Sherman in the lead up to the hearing of the interlocutory application. In particular, I do not think it can be inferred that if Dr Sherman had known that the trial of the patent proceeding would commence in the same month that Apotex Australia obtained a PBS listing of its clopidogrel products (triggering a 12.5% statutory price reduction), that he would have, in those circumstances, authorised Apotex Australia to obtain such a listing before judgment was delivered or, at least, until the trial had concluded (by which time he and his colleagues and his legal advisers may have had a clearer view of the strength of Sanofi’s case).

In the result, at [351], Nicholas J held that the Commonwealth’s claim must be dismissed.

Some other matters

Having dismissed the claim, Nicholas J went on to consider a number of other matters, albeit by way of obiter dicta.

Apotex’ undertaking not to seek PBS listing was not direct loss

The fact that Sanofi did not give an undertaking as to damages in return for Apotex’ undertaking not to seek PBS listing if an interlocutory injunction restraining sale was made would have provided a second basis for dismissing the Commonwealth’s claim.

Nicholas J accepted that the losses claimed by the Commonwealth were a foreseeable consequence of the interlocutory injunction, however, they were not a sufficiently direct consequence of it.

Apotex had recognised that, if an interlocutory injunction restraining sale was granted, there was no point seeking PBS listing. It would not be able to give the guarantee of supply required to obtain PBS listing and so any listing would fail or be revoked. In addition, it might expose it to increased damages having to compensate Sanofi for the profits lost on the automatic 12.5% reduction in price.

While Nicholas J accepted the Commonwealth’s loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the interlocutory injunction, his Honour held it did not result directly from the injunction in the relevant sense. At [445], his Honour explained:

Even if it is accepted, as I have found, that the first Apotex undertaking would never have been given if the interlocutory injunction had not been granted, it does not follow that the Commonwealth’s loss flowed directly from the interlocutory injunction. The terms of the interlocutory injunction did not prevent Apotex Australia from applying for a PBS listing of its clopidogrel products or from taking any other steps to obtain such a listing. Doing so would not have involved a breach of the interlocutory injunction. The Commonwealth’s loss was a natural and direct consequence of Apotex Australia not being able to apply to list its clopidogrel products on the PBS with effect from 1 April 2008, which was the precise conduct to which the first Apotex undertaking was directed, but not something the interlocutory injunction expressly or implicitly prohibited. This strongly suggests, in my view, that the loss alleged by the Commonwealth in this case was an indirect consequence of the interlocutory injunction.

It is worth considering the ramifications of that conclusion. First, it has been held that it is not an infringement of the patent for someone to apply for PBS listing of a drug containing the protected invention.[7] Further, the Commonwealth is not in a position to require a generic company to refrain from giving an undertaking not to seek PBS listing unless there is an undertaking as to damages. Thirdly, His Honour’s reasoning would apply equally to the losses claimed by Apotex under the undertaking as to damages, not just the Commonwealth’s. If you are acting for a ‘generic’ in this situation, therefore, make sure any undertaking as to damages extends to any undertaking not to seek PBS listing.

Sanofi argued that, even if it did not get an interlocutory injunction, the Minister (or delegate) would refuse listing of Apotex’ product in the PBS on the grounds of patent infringement until the outcome of the proceeding was known. Sanofi’s own witnesses, however, admitted such an outcome was unlikely. Instead, Nicholas J considered an application for listing would most likely have been approved if Apotex had given the necessary guarantee of supply. At [419], Nicholas J said:

I do not think it likely that the Delegate would have refused the application on the basis that a trial of the patent proceedings would shortly take place or that a judgment might be expected to be given some time between May 2008 and August 2008. In my view the Delegate is likely to have been most influenced by two matters: first, the willingness of Apotex Australia to provide an assurance of supply and, second, the absence of any interlocutory injunction restraining any such supply. I think it unlikely that a Delegate would have questioned the ability of Apotex Australia to either comply with its assurance of supply or comply with its obligations under the guarantee of supply. So far as the latter was concerned, I consider it most likely that the Delegate would have proceeded on the basis that, in the event that there was some failure on the part of Apotex to supply during the guaranteed period, then it would be open to the Minister in that situation to exercise one or more of the powers available under the relevant provisions of the NHA including the power to delist the Apotex Australia clopidogrel products and the power to reverse the 12.5% statutory price reduction.

Another area of dispute between the parties was what would have happened if the interlocutory injunction had not been granted but, as in fact happened, the trial judge found Apotex infringed. Mr Millichamp from Apotex gave evidence Apotex would have applied to have the Apotex product delisted. Sanofi argued that, in that situation, it would have been able to get the 12.5% automatic price reduction reversed. The Commonwealth contended that reversal was unlikely. There was a at least one prior case where the price reduction had been reversed before the price reduction became automatic. In the unexplained absence of the person who was the relevant decisionmaker within the Government at the time,[8] Nicholas J considered at [529] the chance the Commonwealth would not have reversed the price reduction to be less than 10%.

Sanofi disputed that interest was payable on compensation ordered under the undertaking as to damages. While his Honour did not finally decide the point, Nicholas J indicated at [697] that he would have ordered Sanofi to pay simple interest on the sum awarded on the basis that it would have been just and equitable to do so.

In light of the evidence that it would take only 2 to 3 weeks for Apotex to have written its own Product Information, Nicholas J would not have denied the Commonwealth recovery because the Product Information (and other stipulated regulatory disclosures) infringed Sanofi’s copyright.[9] His Honour considered at [643] there was “good reason to believe” that no interlocutory injunction would have been granted to restrain copyright infringement in that time frame.

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) (No 5) [2020] FCA 543


  1. Australian Patent No 597784 for the dextro-rotatory enantiomer of methyl alpha–5 (4,5,6,7-tetrahydro (3,2-c) thieno pyridyl) (2-chlorophenyl)-acetate, a process for its preparation, and pharmaceutical compositions containing it.  ?
  2. One curiosity of this outcome is that Sanofi’s corresponding patents in Canada and the USA were both upheld as valid and infringed.  ?
  3. Further interlocutory injunctions were put in place pending the outcomes of the appeals.  ?
  4. In essence, while there was only one source of clopidogrel – Sanofi (and BMS as a licensee) – clopidogrel was listed in the PBS in formulary F1. As soon as a second, competing source obtained listing, Sanofi’s listing would be moved into formulary F2 with an automatic price reduction of 12.5% imposed by statute. See [144] – [145]. Paragraphs [36] – [77] contain a useful explanation of how the pricing of products listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme works and, in particular, the automatic reductions on pricing that apply when a second (usually generic) drug is listed.  ?
  5. The evidence disclosed that Apotex’ strategy, having successfully developed its generic clopidogrel (and having at least a further 18 months to complete development of a product based on a different salt), was (1) to secure ARTG listing then in short order (2) to apply for PBS listing, (3) to launch to the trade on an “at risk” basis – i.e. ensure the trade knew Apotex might have to withdraw the product if Sanofi’s patent was valid and (4) then to put Sanofi on notice of its plans to launch by bringing the revocation proceeding. An explicit part of the strategy was to secure the benefit of the undertaking as to damages if Sanofi did block sales through an interlocutory injunction.  ?
  6. The trial judge reached the statutory age for retirement in that month.  ?
  7. Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd (2017) 249 FCR 17  ?
  8. The fact that the person was no longer working for the Commonwealth was not a sufficient justification for the failure to call her.  ?
  9. The Copyright Act 1968 was subsequently amended to preclude the use of copyright against such materials. See now s 44BA.  ?

Hells Angels v Redbubble

Redbubble’s online market place has survived the Hells Angels’ copyright infringement claims, but did infringe their registered trade marks. The reasoning, however, leaves questions hanging over Redbubble’s business model.

Redbubble provides an online market place. Artists can upload their artwork and potential buyers can browse the site to purchase the artwork or merchandise such as t-shirts and coffee cups emblazoned with the artwork. If a purchase is made for, say, a t-shirt with a particular artwork printed on it, Redbubble’s system arranges for the order to be placed with a fulfiller and ultimately shipped in packaging which bears a Redbubble trade mark.

The claims in this case related to uploaded images of a Hell’s Angels membership card featuring a helmeted death’s head in profile:

and registered trade marks featuring versions of the death’s head: Trade Marks Nos 526530,723291, 723463, 1257992 and 1257993.

At 552 paragraphs long, this post is going to be a high level overview only.

Copyright

A key feature in the case is that Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd is not the owner of the copyright or the registered trade marks. It contended it was the exclusive licensee in Australia of those rights; the exclusive licences having been granted by Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation, a US corporation.

The Hells Angels lost the claim of copyright infringement. They did so, however, because they could not prove Hells Angels USA was the owner of the copyright. As a result, Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd could not be the exclusive licensee.

Reaching this conclusion required Greenwood J to explore, amongst other things, the notion of publication and whether the supply of membership cards was supply of copies of the work to the public. And the non-applicability of the US “work for hire” doctrine in ownership disputes under Australian law.

Redbubble is still in trouble.

First, if the applicants had been able to prove title to the copyright, Redbubble would have infringed.

Contrary to Hells Angels’ arguments, Redbubble was not liable for infringement by uploading the images. That was done by the artists in question. In the examples in question, the acts involved uploading images to websites outside Australia. For example, Example 1 was uploaded by an individual in Virginia in the USA. So the uploaders themselves were not liable as their actions did not involve any act done in Australia. At [428] – [429], Greenwood J ruled that, even though the images were made available online to the public in Australia, the artists (uploaders) did not infringe because they did no act in Australia.

…. the act of the artist in uploading the image to the website and thus making the work available online to the public must be an act “done” (that is, an exercise of the exclusive right), “in Australia” and therefore, none of the artists in the examples in suit can be regarded as a “primary infringer” in the territorial sense contemplated by s 36(1) because the relevant act was not done “in Australia”.

His Honour found, however, that Redbubble would be liable for communicating the images to the public in Australia as it was the person who was responsible for determining the content of the communication for the purposes of s 22(6) when a potential customer in Australia viewed the image on the website. Redbubble’s business model was crucial here. At [435], his Honour explained:

The business model as described by Mr Hosking and its working operation as described by Mr Kovalev makes it plain that Redbubble is not in the nature of an ISP linking a user to remote websites. It is not an intermediary providing a transmission service between particular participants. It owns, operates, manages and controls the website and conducts a transactional enterprise in which it facilitates the uploading of images, the interrogation of those images in Australia, relevantly, by users, with a view to enabling sales to consumers of articles bearing the relevant images. It has a detailed business model in which it derives revenue from each transaction and controls every step of the transactional engagement between an artist and a buyer. It confirms the sale. It facilitates payment. It organises a fulfiller to apply the work to the relevant goods. It facilitates delivery of the goods to the buyer. It generates email responses which not only confirm the order but track every step of the transaction. It affixes its own trade marks to the goods. It says that it does not directly do that but there is no doubt that an essential part of its business model is ensuring that fulfillers affix the Redbubble trade marks to the goods. The labels bearing the trade marks are on the goods as delivered to each buyer. Although I will address the trade mark case shortly, the reference to Redbubble’s trade marks, in this context, is simply to note another feature of the extent of Redbubble’s engagement in and association with each transaction. It is Redbubble’s business. But for the Redbubble website, the transactions would not occur. The artworks would not be available online to consumers in Australia to consider and appraise with a view to purchasing a product bearing the artwork. The entire focus of the business model is to enable works to be made available online so that consumers can pick and choose amongst the works so as to have them applied to goods. It would be difficult to imagine a more directly engaged participant than one deploying the business model adopted by Redbubble. Although Redbubble describes itself as the “agent” of the artist (presumably as principal), the relationship is not, in truth, a relationship of agent and principal. Redbubble acts as an “independent contractor” to “facilitate the transaction” as the Redbubble User Agreement and Appendix A to the Services Agreement makes plain: [245] and [246] of these reasons. The artist, in truth, is not the “seller” in the classic sense in which that term might be understood because Redbubble is the supplier as the facilitator of all of the essential elements of the transaction with the consumer in an analogous way to that discussed in:  International Harvester Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigan’s Hazeldene Pastoral Company [1958] HCA 16;  (1958) 100 CLR 644 at 653; Heidelberg Graphics Equipment Ltd v Andrew Knox & Associates Pty Ltd (1994) ATPR 41326 at 42, 31011, notwithstanding that the nature of the technology is different to the forms of distribution arrangement in those cases.


His Honour would, if necessary, have also found Redbubble liable for authorising the conduct if it had been infringing.

Trade Marks

Secondly, Greenwood J found Redbubble liable for infringement of the Hells Angels’ registered trade marks on works such as t-shirt designs featuring the death’s head logo.

The crux of this finding came back to Redbubble’s business model. Greenwood J accepted that the artist who uploaded the image was using the trade mark as a trade mark. Unlike the copyright test, there was no requirement that the artist be in Australia. However, so was Redbubble.

At [460] – [461], his Honour explained:

As to Redbubble, that company is “in the business” of facilitating the supply of products bearing the uploaded image of Ms Troen (in this example) or, put another way, Redbubble is in the business of facilitating the supply of clothing bearing, put simply, the registered trade marks of HAMC US (in this example). Redbubble is not the “seller” of artwork. However, it is the supplier, in the sense that it is responsible for all of the transactional supplyside elements of a transaction for the supply of goods bearing the applied works. (emphasis supplied)


Redbubble has created a business model designed to enable users, in Australia (and, for that matter users in all jurisdictions in which the website is accessible), to find images through the website comprised of, in this example, Ms Troen’s image made up of the identified trade marks of HAMC US. Redbubble enables images containing the relevant trade marks to be presented to buyers of particular goods (nominated by the artists from the website categories of those goods to which the work can be applied) expressly for the purpose of facilitating the supply of goods (clothing, in this example) to which the marks are applied. It does so by and through the functions and protocols of the website engaged by Mr Hansen (and other potential viewers of the image), in Australia.

His Honour elaborated on why Redbubble’s conduct attracted liability at [462] – [469]. While this and two other examples infringed, his Honour found that, on the particular facts, Example 2 was not infringing use.

Greenwood J’s reasons also include an extended consideration of whether Hells Angels Australia was an authorised user; ultimately concluding it was.

Greenwood J, however, rejected Hells Angels’ claims that use of “Hells Angels” as search terms, or key words, within the Redbubble site was infringing. At [542] explaining:

542. …. However, I am not satisfied that this use, in itself, is use of the word marks as a trade mark, at this point in the functionality of the website. I take that view because I am not satisfied that using the term as a search term to find a relevant image is use of the term as a “badge of origin” of Redbubble. It is, undoubtedly, a use which is designed, quite deliberately, to lead a consumer by the “search nose” to images, marks, devices, livery and badging somehow or other connected with the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.

….

544. … use of the word marks … as a search term is a search step along the way to use of the image and thus the registered trade marks, as trade marks but use of the word marks at the point of searching is not, in itself, in my view, use as a trade mark. (original emphasis)

It appears that, at the stage of entering the search term, it is not being used to identify things offered under the aegis of the Hells Angels, but just to locate things about the Hells Angels in some way.

This is the second ruling at first instance where Redbubble has been found to infringe.

While Redbubble’s business model does leave it exposed along the lines indicated above. It is worth noting that Greenwood J awarded only nominal damages of $5,000 in respect of two of the three infringements. His Honour did not allow even nominal damages in respect of the third infringement, Example 4, as it was online for a short period, viewed only 11 times and no sales resulted.

Greenwood J expressly rejected any claim for exemplary damages. His Honour does not go into reasons. Perhaps, Redbubble’s business model did protect it. The evidence was clear, for example, that Redbubble had a policy relating to infringement claims and implemented it promptly.

Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Limited v Redbubble Limited  [2019] FCA 355

Cartel conduct and IP licences and assignments

Will your assignments and licences of intellectual property, such as in a typical franchise agreement, expose your client to liability for cartel conduct or will you be ready to apply for an authorisation?

One of the bills pending before Parliament contains the long pursued (by the ACCC) repeal of s 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Section 51(3) exempts from most of the prohibitions in Pt IV of the Competition and Consumer Act terms and conditions in assignments and licences of intellectual property which most of us take for granted.

The rationale for repeal is that most transactions involving IP do not have anti-competitive effects or purposes and, if they do, they should not be exempt from the competition laws.

Rodney De Boos, a consultant at DCC with many years’ experience in licensing and commercialisation of IP, however, points out that this explanation was developed before the provisions banning cartel conduct were introduced into the Act. And, he contends, typical arrangements in IP agreements which allocate, for example, territories or customers will constitute cartel conduct and so need authorisation if the parties are not to be in breach of the cartel provisions.

As Rodney explains, a cartel provision are certain types of specified provisions between competitors.

Now, it may well be that an assignor and assignee, or a licensor and licensee, will not be competitors. There are many types of arrangements, however, where the Competition and Consumer Act will deem them to be competitors. An obvious example is the case of a franchisor who has retail outlets (either itself or through a related body corporate) as well as retail franchisees. Other arrangements involving IP could also be similarly problematical.

You can read Rodney’s concerns in more detail here.

The bill repealing s 51(3) has already passed the House of Representatives and is due to be debated by the Senate in the sittings coming up.

Service providers and safe harbours

According to Parliament’s website, the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 passed its third reading in the Senate and has now had its first reading in the House of Representatives.[1]

Instead of amending the definition of persons who can (potentially) claim the benefit of the online safe harbours to accord with the definition of service provider required under the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement,[2] it will extend the class of potential beneficiaries from carriage service providers to what may broadly be described as “the education, cultural and disability sectors”.

To implement this impending development, the Department of Communications and the Arts has released a consultation paper on on draft Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Regulations 2018 (you have to scroll down to get to the links for (a) the consultation paper itself and (b) the draft regulations).

If you are in one of those sectors or a rights holder with concerns, you need to get your submissions in by 29 June 2018.


  1. Both these events occurred on 10 May 2018.  ?
  2. See art. 17.11.29(xii): “For the purposes of the function referred to in clause (i)(A), service provider means a provider of transmission, routing, or connections for digital online communications without modification of their content between or among points specified by the user of material of the user’s choosing, and for the purposes of the functions referred to in clause (i)(B) through (D), service provider means a provider or operator of facilities for online services or network access.”  ?

IP Laws Amendment ( Productivity Commission Response Pt 1 etc) Bill 2018

On May 10, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was referred to the Senate’s Economics Legislation Committee.

You may recall that, amongst other things, the Bill has another go at parallel imports and trade marks (which also entails repealing s 198A of the Copyright Act 1968), reduces the period before registered trade marks can be attacked for non-use, permits non-PBR-protected varieties to be declared as essentially derived varieties and a host of other reforms (Sch. 2 has 21 Parts)

The Senate committee is required to report on the bill by 22 June 2018.

If you are an agricultural organisation, medical research industry, an IP peak body (who is not going to INTA) or somehow at a loose end, you need to get your skates on as submissions must be made by 1 June 2018.

New Twist In Website Blocking Injunctions

Nicholas J has granted further injunctions under s 115A against the telcos / ISPs to block access to websites related to HD Subs+.

The interesting point about these injunctions is that the blocked websites provide software[1] to be downloaded for X–96 Smart TV Boxes, set-top boxes which provide a subscription service to access pirated streams of films and television programs.

Once the user had downloaded the software and activated a subscription, the software would connect to “facilitating servers” which authenticated the user, provided electronic programming information, software updates and content management information – allowing retrieval of the IP addresses of the “content servers” that hosted the movie or TV program to be streamed.

Thus, the primary purpose of the HD Subs service was to “facilitate” copyright infringement. At [21], Nicholas J explained:

The target online locations contribute functionality to a subscription based online service (“the HD Subs service”) that facilitates the electronic transmission of films and television broadcasts in which copyright subsists, without the licence of the copyright owners. The target online locations facilitate such infringements by providing updates, authenticating users or providing EPG information for the HD Subs service. This appears to be their sole function. In the case of the HD Subs website, it provides the HD Subs+ Apps, processes payments, and provides activation codes that enable a user to access the HD Subs service. Again, this would appear to be its sole function.

The terms of the injunctions correspond with the decisions already handed down – so much so that the ISPs didn’t turn up.

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] FCA 582


  1. The HD Subs+ App, the upgraded HD Subs+ App and the Press Play Extra App.  ?