Category Archive for: ‘Subjects’

When is information about a residential property “personal information”?

Is information contained in a document about a residential property “personal information” about the owners or occupants of the property under NSW privacy legislation even if the document doesn’t directly identify the owners or occupants? This was the question that the Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal had to consider in Office of Finance and Services v …

Read More
Subjects: |

ACCC grants interim authorisation of Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct

In October this year we posted on the ACCC’s draft determination on the new edition 18 of Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct (see more here). As readers of our blog might recall, the ACCC indicated that it would not grant approval to the new edition of the Code unless certain amendments were made to increase transparency regarding gifts and benefits …

Read More

Coffee wars – High Court clarifies test for registrability of trade marks

In a landmark trade mark judgment delivered on 3 December 2014, the High Court in Cantarella Bros v Modena Trading [2014] HCA 48 has clarified a critical aspect of Australian trade mark law relating to the test for inherent adaptation to distinguish (inherent distinctiveness) under section 41.  The majority of the High Court found that the words ORO and CINQUE …

Read More
Subjects:

What’s in a name? Saks v “Snaks” trade mark dispute

 (Unfortunately, not for human consumption. Some of the treats available from “Snaks 5th Avenchew”.) They say dogs are (wo)man’s best friend, but apparently the team over at Saks 5th Avenue missed the memo. The luxury U.S. department store had a less than friendly reaction to discovering a small online business retailing specialty canine and equine treats under the name “Snaks …

Read More
Partner:

Website blocking injunction issued for trade mark infringement

The importance of trade marks to luxury brands has always been a happy coincidence for this IP Whiteboard blogger, so when Justice Arnold handed down his latest decision in relation to counterfeit goods in the UK High Court, I (momentarily) ceased flicking through the latest issue of Vogue and switched over to Bailii (the UK’s case law database, and equally …

Read More
Partner:

Data security breach by Australian Immigration Department

The Australian Privacy Commissioner has found that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection contravened the Privacy Act when the Department accidentally published the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers in a document that was intended to provide statistical information about the number and status of applications made for refugee status. The contravention occurred in February 2014, just weeks …

Read More
Subjects:

“HOW” does matter – ethics company sues yoghurt

Imagine this: you’re a best-selling author and CEO. You’ve spent years building your brand, working hard to distil it down to one word, “HOW”, which you’ve registered as a trade mark. You host a meeting with a prospective client, an advertising agency, during which you discuss “HOW” and its meaning. A few months go by, and a certain yoghurt company …

Read More
Partner:

Proposed changes to the Copyright Act to implement the Marrakesh Treaty – with a side note on the ALRC’s fair use recommendation

The Government has recently announced a public consultation on Australia’s implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty. The Government’s proposed implementation is outlined in the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Options Paper (available here), which proposes three alternatives, all of which require amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Submissions close on 30 November 2014. Tucked away in the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Options Paper …

Read More
Subjects:
Partner:

Is your computer-implemented business method patentable? The Full Federal Court dismisses Research Affiliates’ appeal

A unanimous Full Federal Court has held that a computer implemented method of creating an investment index is not patentable, on the basis that the substance of the claimed invention – an abstract idea or scheme – is itself not patentable subject matter and just because the claimed invention could be implemented using a computer does not make it patentable. …

Read More
Subjects: