Yearly Archive for: ‘2016’

Productivity Commission’s final report pulls no punches on patents

Yesterday the Productivity Commission published its final report on Australia’s IP system. Our high level summary of the Commission’s recommendations across all aspects of the IP system can be found here. The Commission sees the patent system as tipped in favour of patent owners and its recommendations are designed to restore balance. This post provides an outline of the key …

Read More
Subjects: |
Partner:

Counter-productive? Australia’s Productivity Commission releases Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements

Yesterday, Australia’s Productivity Commission released their Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements. This report was sent to Government on 23 September 2016. The Government is carrying out additional public consultation in relation to the recommendations made in the Final Report, which differ in key respects from some of the Commission’s draft recommendations. You can make a submission here – …

Read More
Partner:

WIN v Nine: Court of Appeal confirms Justice Hammerschlag’s decision

Prepared by:    Helena Kanton and Michael Swinson This month, the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by regional TV broadcaster WIN against an earlier decision by the New South Wales Supreme Court that the Nine Network was not prohibited under an exclusive licence agreement with WIN from live streaming Nine’s TV programming over the internet in WIN’s …

Read More
Subjects:

The overarching purpose – misuse of confidential information, copyright infringement and the power of section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act

Earlier this week, Justice Moshinsky handed down judgment in SAI Global Property Division Pty Ltd v Johnstone [2016] FCA 1333, a confidential information and copyright infringement case involving a former employee of SAI, which is an important reminder in relation to the conduct of litigation generally. Background SAI is a leading provider in Australia of integrated search, settlement and conveyancing software …

Read More

Levi’s stitches up win in jeans pocket case

You pick up a pair of jeans in the store, and you inspect the back pockets. (Is there anyone that doesn’t select jeans based on what is on the back pockets?) What brand of jeans are you holding? The answer would be obvious to many. They’re LEVI’S jeans. You could tell whether the word mark LEVI’S was there or not. …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

Hand over the ouzo and no one gets hurt – Little Greek Taverna enjoins use of Little Greek Cuzina, and a Cheeky restaurant case from the UK

The owner of a registration for the LITTLE GREEK TAVERNA logo (below left) has obtained an interlocutory injunction enjoining the use of LITTLE GREEK CUZINA (below right) by two Brisbane restaurants*.          The facts 3 Florinians Pty Ltd (Taverna) is a family business run by its directors, Ms Elli Parmaklis, Ms Domna Papavasiliou and Mr Yianni Parmaklis. The …

Read More
Partner:

Another case considering t-shirt branding. Has Silberquelle been transplanted into Australian law?

The Australian airline Qantas has had its opposition against the “t-shirt” mark below rejected by the Federal Court (Qantas Airways Limited v Edwards [2016] FCA 729). (Edwards’ Mark) The decision makes interesting reading in a number of respects, but this note only considers a discreet issue. Is use on a t-shirt trade mark use? If so, in respect of what …

Read More
Partner:

Insecure title: Don’t forget to register your security interest when supplying content on retention of title terms

A recent judgment from the NSW Supreme Court involving the lease of gas turbines is actually a useful and important reminder to content producers seeking to retain copyright in content provided to customers until those works are paid for. On the face of it, the decision in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) v General …

Read More
Subjects: | |

Australian Privacy Commissioner takes expansive view of jurisdiction in Ashley Madison case

Many regulators take an expansive view of their remit, and the Australian Privacy Commissioner has acted in this way in the Ashley Madison case. The Ashley Madison data security breach attracted enormous publicity worldwide, when details of approximately 36 million subscribers were published by hacktivists operating under the monicker “The Impact Team”. The company that ran the affected business is …

Read More
Subjects:

Page 1 of 512345»