Yearly Archive for: ‘2017’

In Good Shape – the Federal Court’s reminder to fit-out and shape your trade mark protection

In the recent case of Shape Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Shape Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 865, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether certain marks that included the word “SHAPE” were deceptively similar: Applicant’s registered mark   Respondent’s marks Although a large proportion of the decision focused on whether there had been breaches of the Australian Consumer …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

Drugs in the fast lane: provisional drug registration and other proposed changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act

Following the Australian Government’s Response to the Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation in 2016, the government recently released exposure drafts for a set of significant reforms to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth). The proposed changes include modifications to the regulation of complementary medicines, and a new class of “provisionally registered goods”.  This new class provides an opportunity …

Read More
Subjects:

All’s fair in love and war? The limits of the “fair dealing” copyright exception

The Fair Dealing-Fair Use war has been raging in Australia since antiquity. The Fair Users fondly yearn for the green pastures of American-esque copyright law. They imagine a vast nation where creative works are freely and peacefully disseminated as Fair Use, their benevolent sovereign, smiles on creators and consumers with equanimity and impartiality. The Fair Dealers on the other hand …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

Sorry – your name isn’t on the list! Canada’s Supreme Court orders Google to de-index certain unlawful websites globally

A decision in June by Canada’s Supreme Court in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 has ordered Google to de-list certain unlawful websites from its search results worldwide. The decision has sparked immediate debate about the implications of such global takedowns on freedom of speech and on the power of Internet intermediaries. Background Equustek Solutions (Inc.) (Equustek), …

Read More
Partner:

Rock, racism and the Constitution: the US Supreme Court takes a different slant on trade marks

America! It’s a land of flags, Twinkies, NASCAR. and Constitutional amendments.  Matal v Tam (PDF) is the most recent warning not to get between an American and any of those things. The case concerned the application by a “new-wave dance rock” band to register their band name as a trade mark. Ordinarily, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) would let …

Read More
Partner:

Stuck between some wine and a hard case – some lessons from the Barokes “wine in a can” saga

Every now and then a case cracks open a delicious mix of intellectual property and commercial problems. Recent litigation by Barokes over “wine in a can” is one such example. After centuries of drinking wine out of glass bottles (or ‘goon sacks’ [1]) two inventors took the plunge and developed revolutionary technology for “wine in a can”. Barokes Pty Ltd (Barokes) …

Read More
Partner:

Blockchained to the rhythm: what are ‘distributed ledgers’ and could they help the music industry and copyright?

Forget Napster! One of the biggest problems in the music industry is the who, what, where, and why: which labels and publishers, performers, songwriters and producers own which rights and what split of royalties should be paid? Worse still: when are the songs being played, who by, and for what purpose? This occurs, in part, because of the labyrinthine distribution …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

Artifex Software v Hancom: Guidance from US District Court on enforcement of open source software licences

Open source software is regularly used as a way of leveraging the collective knowledge of the software development community by allowing anyone to improve and contribute to the code, provided they ‘pay it forward’ and allow their improved code to be used by the community. Open source software is often incorporated into proprietary software to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ – …

Read More
Subjects: |

Threats Muddy Waters: unjustified threats of infringement in the Full Federal Court of Australia

A decision in March of the Full Federal Court in Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 44 concerning unjustified threats of infringement will have some lawyers as happy as pigs in mud. Dishing the Dirt Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (AMC) is the owner of an innovation patent related to core sampling. In November 2006, it …

Read More

Page 1 of 3123»