Some talks (not me)

Coming up to the end of the year, there are events on reforming patent litigation practice and domain name disputes in review.

Patent litigation practice

Calling it “A very IPRIA Christmas”, IP Australia and IPRIA are hosting on 7 December at 5:30 pm an end of year celebration exploring “a wish list of practice reforms for making patent litigation in Australia (including appeals from the Office) more expeditious and cost effective.”

The event will be chaired by Justice Rofe and features Clare Cunliffe and David Shavin KC from the Bar and Lisa Taliadoros from the solicitors’ side of the profession.

Registration is free and attendance can be in person or online – although to assist catering they do ask that you register by the end of Monday 5 December if you are planning to attend at the Law School in Carlton in person.

Domain names

If domain name disputes are more your thing, the Hon. Neil Brown KC is also presenting an “Annual round-up on Domain Name Arbitration”. Topics Neil intends to cover include:

  • how the domain name process works
  • latest trends emerging from the decisions of arbitrators
  • what evidence do you need and how to collect the best evidence
  • the procedures to lodge a claim and how to defend one
  • traps for new players.

While Neil and I haven’t always seen eye to eye in particular cases, Neil has lots of experience both in the UDRP and a number of other regional and country-specific dispute resolution processes.

Neil is giving his talk online via Zoom at 10:00 am (Melbourne time; i.e. UTC +11) also on 7 December 2022.

According to his brochure, there is no need to register; just log-in. I am afraid I cannot reproduce the link so you are probably best just to email him directly.

Some talks (not me) Read More »

Tobacco and trade marks seminars – the video

Tobacco and trade marks seminars – the video Read More »

Tobacco and trade marks seminar

IPRIA is hosting a seminar on the Commonwealth Government’s announced intention to ban the use of artwork and logos on cigarette packaging.


  • Prof. Mark Davison
  • Prof. John Freebairn, a professor of economics at Melbourne Uni
  • Ass. Prof. Angela Paladino, who teaches in Marketing at Melbourne Uni (and is a recipient of over $2M in competitive funding)
  • Tim Wilson, the Director of Intellectual Property and Free Trade unit at the Institute of Public Affairs.

They threaten to “consider the economic, legal, ethical and marketing implications of this decision”. Unfortunately, there is no indication that Kev10 will be there to perform his patented double pike with backflip. However, it does seem that the Senate Committee inquiring into the bill is not due to report until 26 August 2010. (although submissions should well and truly be in by now).


Wednesday, 26 May 2010 at 6pm (Lecture Theatre GO8, Melbourne Law School)

The seminar is free and there are CPD points going.

Details and registration here.

Tobacco and trade marks seminar Read More »

Copyright fest in Melbourne

IPRIA and CMCL at Melbourne Uni. are holding a half-day forum on 18 March on:

  • iiNet
  • Larrikin (Down Under)
  • Telstra v PDC

Speakers are:


David Brennan, Melbourne Law School
Melissa de Zwart, University of South Australia
David Lindsay, Monash University
Beth Webster, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia
Philip Williams, Frontier Economics
Details and registration here.

Copyright fest in Melbourne Read More »

IPRIA Seminars

Prof. Ann Monotti and other experts will be talking about what University of Western Australia v Gray means for Universities in

  1. Melbourne on 17 November
  2. Brisbane on 23 November; and
  3. Perth on 20 November.

Details and registration here.

Judge Hiroki Morishita will be providing an Introduction to the High Court of Intellectual Property in Japan on 9 November in Melbourne. Details and registration here.

And, if you’ve recovered from Oaks Day, you could find out what difference a patent makes in Melbourne on 6 November.

IPRIA Seminars Read More »

IPRIA, parallel imports

IPRIA has organised a seminar in Melbourne on 15 September and Sydney on 16 September to discuss whether freeing parallel imports will make books cheaper.

Speakers include both Prof. Fels, who started it all, and Dr Rhonda Smith.

Details from here.

Has anyone established how far the prices of CDs and computer software fell once the markets for those products became open?

IPRIA, parallel imports Read More »

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 leads to enforcement of an informal or formal kind. IPRIA recently conducted a representative survey of over 3700 Australian inventors in order to estimate the prevalence of (alleged) infringement and what formal and informal steps were taken to stop the copying activities. We present these findings along with a discussion of what can be done to improve the efficacy of patent enforcement in Australia.

The seminar is free of charge.

More information and links to the registration pages for each event here.

IPRIA seminar on patent infringementi Read More »

Should genes be patented?

Should genes be patented? Read More »

Ambush Marketing DownUnder

The Government has published Frontier Economics’ review of the ambush marketing legislation provided by the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth) and the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2005 (Cth) (the AML).

According to the Executive Summary, key points include:

  • The Review is of the opinion that the AML has provided tangible benefits to the organisers, and that these have a direct (although difficult to quantify) bearing on their ability to raise revenue from licensing. 
  • The AML appears to have provided greater clarity regarding the existence and scope of the organisers’ entitlements.
  • There doesn’t appear to have been many, if any, ‘blatant’ examples of ambush marketing  for some time.
  • Concerns were identified, particularly in the Olympic Insignia Protection Act, with the definition of ‘commercial purposes’ and the requirement to show that an accused use would be seen by a reasonable person as suggesting sponsorship like support.

While the review found the legislation largely working as intended, it did not some qualifications:

(1) whether apparent reductions in ambush marketing are due to factors outside the AML;

(2) whether NSOs and other peak bodies have been unduly hampered in their ability to attract their own sponsorships; and

(3) whether sufficient income generated from the rights granted under the AML has been returned to sport. 

Read the report here (pdf).

Ambush Marketing DownUnder Read More »

Scroll to Top