Monthly Archive for: ‘June, 2012’
We know that you’ve all been Up All Night waiting with bated breath for news regarding UK heartthrobs One Direction and their battle with their US namesakes over rights to the “One Direction” trade mark (see our earlier post here).
The High Court has granted Google special leave to appeal a unanimous Full Federal Court decision which found that Google had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct concerning “sponsored links” or “AdWords” that appeared on the search engine.
Fashionistas challenge Louboutin’s sole rights to red sole shoe – Louboutin asserts its claim to red is not yet dead
Last week the French Court of Appeal ruled that Zara could continue to sell shoes with red soles without infringing Louboutin’s “Red Sole Trade Mark”. Louboutin, famous for its red soled shoes, has engaged in an aggressive trade mark enforcement strategy in recent years, commencing proceedings against a range of fashion brands that have adopted the red sole look.
Last night, ICANN posted all applications for the new global Top Level Domains (gTLD) and who has applied for them. Amazon made over 70 applications for words in English and Google made approximately 100 applications. Interestingly, Facebook did not make any applications. In total, approximately 1900 applications were made.
You can read more about Reveal Day in our alert here.
Picture this…you’re sitting back enjoying a good game of rugby league between the Manly Sea Eagles and the Brisbane Broncos.
A French court has ruled that YouTube was not responsible for large amounts of copyright protected films and TV shows uploaded illegally to its site.
In 2008, major French broadcaster TF1, brought an action against YouTube claiming €141 million in damages on the basis that YouTube had allegedly hosted TF1’s shows, films and interviews without the consent of the broadcaster, including Grey’s Anatomy and Oscar-winning film La Vie En Rose.
The Google Books class action saga has moved a step closer to hearing. But first, a recap. As avid readers of IP Whiteboard will know, Judge Chin rejected the amended settlement agreement on anti-trust grounds, and because it was a “forward looking business arrangement” that authorised Google’s future conduct.
There are various ways, both legal and practical, to protect yourself against the risk of an ex-employee making use of your valuable business information and poaching your customers. One of the ways in which employers are protected is through the doctrine of confidential information. However, understanding the limitations of that protection is important. Read More