Category Archive for: ‘Trade marks’
January is resolution time. A universal thought takes over: “I need to quit smoking, lose weight and call my mother more!” The IP Whiteboard team are not immune to this infectious optimism, and have put together some “IP resolutions” to kick off Twenty Ten. It’s not exactly Letterman’s Top 10, and we know resolutions aren’t always kept, but here goes!
The launch of the highly-anticipated Google “Nexus One” phone based on the “android” platform has the blogosphere buzzing about more than the technology. There is controversy over the name and who owns the intellectual property rights to “Nexus One”. The estate of science fiction writer Philip K Dick claims that the name has been taken from his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? later made into the movie Blade Runner. The novel tells the story of a bounty hunter whose mission is to eliminate rogue “Nexus-6” series androids.
Have you heard that Kellogg’s plans to brand its famous signature onto individual Corn Flakes?
A Parisian court has fined eBay €1.7m after users of its French web site continued to buy and sell Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (“LVMH”) perfumes in breach of a 2008 injunction. The injunction was granted after the luxury goods conglomerate, which includes brands such as Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior, successfully sued eBay for €40m in June 2008 for selling fake goods using the company’s brand.
The Full Federal Court this morning dismissed an appeal by Mars in proceedings relating to the packaging of a chocolate coated malt ball product known as “Malt Balls”. Justices Bennett, Emmett and Edmonds all agreed with the trial judge that the packaging of Australian confectionary importer Sweet Rewards’ “Malt Balls” product would not mislead consumers
It is rare for a parent company to oppose the trade mark of one of its subsidiaries. Yet, as recently reported in The Age, (6/11/09, “Branson and Virgin Blue battle over name”) this appears to be the case in a trade mark opposition brought by Virgin Enterprises against an application lodged by Virgin Blue. At stake is whether Virgin Blue has the rights to use the “V Australia” trade mark and brand, the name of Virgin Enterprises’ trans-Pacific airline, on a wide variety of goods.
The Federal Court recently confirmed, in Apotex v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2), that a patentee’s conduct is a crucial element considered by the Court in relation to the exercise of judicial discretion to amend a patent. In particular, a patentee applying for an amendment must make a full and frank disclosure of all the reasons for seeking the amendment. The amendment must be sought in good faith and without delay.