Yearly Archive for: ‘2009’
The Full Federal Court has given further content to the concept of ‘innovative step’ contained in the Patents Act 1990 innovation patent system. On Tuesday, the Court handed down its decision in Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd  FCAFC 81, rejecting Dura-Post’s appeal from a decision of Gyles J that certain relevant claims of Delnorth’s innovation patents (for roadside posts) were valid and infringed. The Full Court’s decision only relates to questions of validity and, in partic
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been invited to consider the use of competitors’ trade marks in search engine keyword advertising. The case raises a number of issues in trade mark and community law, and could have significant implications for Google’s AdWord policy and future search engine trade mark disputes in Australia.
Despite its combative connotations, ‘ambush marketing’ does not refer to aggressive telemarketers, or the volume of TV advertising these days. Rather, classic ambush marketing occurs when a company attempts to intrude on an existing arrangement between a sponsor and an event, to get the benefits of being associated with the event, without needing to pay the sponsorship fee. The techniques for doing this can be quite subtle, designed to allude to the event without referring to it by name.
Developments in New Zealand
L’Oreal produces and markets a number of well-known fragrances, including the perfumes Trésor, Miracle and Anaïs-Anaïs. L’Oreal is also the registered owner of a number of marks in relation to these perfumes, including word marks (such as “Trésor”) and figurative marks (covering representations of the bottles and packaging of the perfumes).
On June 5, shortly after the registration of the premium mobile services industry code (discussed here), the Federal Court made declarations that AMV Holding had breached sections 52 and 53 of the TPA in their “BLiNG” advertisements for premium mobile services, published in the popular “Dolly”, “Girlfriend”, and “TV Hits” magazines (ACCC v AMV Holding Ltd  FCA
Since 2003, the RIAA and major music labels have launched proceedings against approximately 35,000 users of online peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing networks, including Kazaa. The majority of users have settled rather than going to court, agreeing to payments of between USD$3,700 and $5,200. However, Ms Thomas-Rasset refused to agree to a settlement and was the first user to take her case to court.
It’s good to see that European intellectual property lawyers are grappling with issues surrounding the appearance and packaging of chocolate as much as we are here in Australia (albeit in a slightly different context).