Since 2003, the RIAA and major music labels have launched proceedings against approximately 35,000 users of online peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing networks, including Kazaa. The majority of users have settled rather than going to court, agreeing to payments of between USD$3,700 and $5,200. However, Ms Thomas-Rasset refused to agree to a settlement and was the first user to take her case to court.
It’s good to see that European intellectual property lawyers are grappling with issues surrounding the appearance and packaging of chocolate as much as we are here in Australia (albeit in a slightly different context).
In a recent Federal Court case, the Brewery Association of Bavaria (BBA) claimed that the German state of Bavaria was so synonymous with beer that the word “BAVARIA” on a beer label would amount to a geographical indicator (GI), contrary to s 61 of the Trade Marks Act (the Act). Section 61 prevents the registration of a mark which contains an indicator that the product came from a particular region and has a quality or reputation attributable to that region.
The mark opposed by BBA was a beer label containing the words:
Two recent decisions of the Full Federal Court and the NSW Supreme Court have displaced the long-held presumption that final witness statements are protected by legal professional privilege. The witness statements in question were witness statements that had been served on a party, though were not ultimately relied upon at trial. These cases suggest that it may now be far easier to obtain final witness statements th
The French Constitutional Council ruled on 10 June 2009 that the Création and Internet Law (known more colloquially known as the “loi Hadopi” or the “three strikes and you’re out” law) was unconstitutional. Interestingly, the Council characterised free access to the internet as a human right, that could not be taken away by an administrative authority.
The US Federal Circuit recently held that when seeking a declaratory judgment in relation to a patent held by a foreign entity, specific personal jurisdiction is only appropriate where that entity has sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction in which the judgment is pursued.
The rationale for this is found in the due process requirements in the US Constitution. Essentially, jurisdiction is appropriate over an entity when it would be fair to haul it before courts in that forum. Fairness, in turn, can be established where: