Category Archive for: ‘Subjects’
Cosmetics giant L’Oreal launched a trade mark infringement action in France against the online auction house in September 2007, alleging that eBay was not doing enough to combat transactions involving fake L’Oreal perfumes. Judge Elisabeth Belfort last week ruled in eBay’s favour, finding that eBay had fulfilled its obligation towards other market operators (including L’Oreal) in good faith, by developing eBay’s current anti-counterfeiting measures. Despite this, Judge Belfort ordered both companies to mediation in order to jointly develop a plan for improvi
Everyone is aware of the ordinary rule: costs follow the event. A successful litigant will recover costs in the absence of special circumstances. But what constitutes special circumstances in patent cases? The recent Full Court decision in PAC Mining Pty Ltd v Esco Corporation (No 2)  FCAFC 52 highlights where the Court may depart from the ordinary rule and apportion costs on an issues basis.
Irish internet provider Eircom has agreed to implement a “three strikes” notice and disconnect regime in settling a case brought against it in the High Court in Ireland by the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA).
ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) recently fined Optus $110,000 for alleged breaches of the Spam Act 2003 (Cth), in sending electronic messages without accurate sender information. In light of the significant penalties imposed by ACMA, we think it’s timely to think about “friend emails friend” communications, which may also risk contravening the Act.
On 16 December 2008 the UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills launched an informal consultation on the future direction of copyright. The aim of the consultation is to build on the Gower’s Report released in 2006 and ensure that the copyright system properly supports creative industries in the UK in the light of digital developments over the last decade.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/exposed-home-brand-deception/2009/01/16/1231608986605.html), Coles is set to overhaul its home brands partly due to concerns that the Coles Tick is too similar to the Australian Heart Foundation Tick.
Three recent cases instituted by Review (an Australian clothing designer and retailer) against alleged infringers of its registered dress designs have shown how difficult it can be to deter would-be infringers. Although in each of the three cases (Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments  FCA 74; Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redbury Enterprise Pty Ltd  FCA 1588; and Read More
Have you seen Coca-Cola’s “Share the Summer” campaign? The billboard advertisements omit any reference to the name “Coke” or “Coca-Cola”. Instead, consumers are invited to recognise the brand from the red background and the slogan “Share the Summer” featured in curly white script (also see www.sharethesummer.com.au). Clearly Coke thinks this form of advertising works. It did something similar in 2007 with its “Enjoy Summer” advertising. In this respect, Coke is challenging the traditional wisdom that, in all advertising, ‘the name
Over recent years, some members of the Federal Court have been sceptical about advertising evidence. In Cadbury v Darrell Lea, Heerey J made it clear that expert marketing evidence could prove an expensive waste of time. In his view, judges were well placed to determine themselves the brand impact of different types of packaging and marketing. Heerey J was not alone in this view, although the Full Court did overturn his decision to exclude expert evidence from the case. Now, the “Monster” case shows that the debate continues, but is perhaps trending towards an accept