The United States Patent and Trademark Office has proposed to WIPO a comprehensive overhaul of the PCT system, dubbed PCT II, which would further internationalise the patent application system.
Txt “STOP” to Mobile Premium Services – ACMA finally registers the Mobile Premium Services Industry Code
No doubt you are aware of those pesky ads on TV asking you to text “FLIRT” if you want to discover how much of a flirter your partner is, text for that too-catchy too-cute ringtone, or even claiming to be able to tell you whether your lover is “the one”. These, along with psychic and horoscope lines, voting lines for TV shows or competitions, dating and chat services, ringtone services, sports updates and even exam result hotlines, all fall under the banner of Mobile Premium Services (MPS). MPS are broad, consisting of any content or services that you access vi
On 22 April 2009 the High Court delivered its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.
The Bill to replace the Patents Act 1953 (NZ) has finally received its first reading in Parliament. Copies of the draft Bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the first reading speeches are available at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/a/f/2/00DBHOH_BILL8651_1-Patents-Bill.htm
In a recent audit of .org.au domain names, auDA (the body responsible for .au domain names) found that 4,113 domain names (being 23% of all audited .org.au domain name registrations) did not comply with the eligibility criteria. This included instances where a domain name:
L’Oreal made three key claims against eBay in the proceedings:
For the first time in Australia, the registration of a trade mark has been refused on the ground that the application was made in bad faith. The decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office in Hard Coffee Pty Limited v Hard Coffee Main Beach Pty Limited  ATMO 26 is the first successful opposition pursuant to s 62A of the Trade Marks Act, which applies to all trade marks accepted on or after 23 October 2006, and read
The Australian parody/satire fair dealing defence to copyright infringement was introduced in December 2006 (s 41A of the Copyright Act ). But does anyone really know what it covers? Humour is subjective, and there is a dearth of relevant case law in this country. Of course, the parody/satire defence doesn’t require a piece to be funny per se (although such a requirement could lead to interesting courtroom debates), and the nature of parody implies that the piece must at least be comedic in nature.