I agreed to what?
It’s an emotional roller coaster you’d likely want to avoid. read more…
Way more than an everyday interest in IP
http://ipwhiteboard.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Robert-Cooper-40.jpg
It’s an emotional roller coaster you’d likely want to avoid. read more…
The European Court of Justice (“ECJ“) yesterday ruled that, in certain circumstances, online market operators such as eBay may be held liable for trade mark infringement by users of their sites, and that they should take preventative action against sellers of counterfeit goods.
Patent lawyers were kept busy throughout 2010, in a year which saw a company director being found liable for patent infringement, the Courts emphasising the importance of full and frank disclosure when seeking patent amendments, the first consideration of section 223 of the Patents Act, changes to patent prosecution practice, and legislative reform. For a recap of all the significant Australian patent decisions handed down in 2010, check out the Mallesons 2010 Patents Review, available here. read more…
Amidst all the talk of increasing workforce participation and returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13, it’s perhaps unsurprising to find no big ticket items directly affecting IP in the 2011-12 Federal Budget handed on Tuesday night by Treasurer Wayne Swan.
Earlier this year, the Australian Patent Office (“APO”) in First Principles, Inc [2011] APO 1 considered the patentability of an invention relating to a method for “rational inquiry”. The method purports to improve a person’s reasoning by detecting and removing “disintegrations”. This is achieved by compiling two “matrices” of data for the subject and comparing them to identify inconsistencies. The patent specification states that disintegrations read more…
What happens when the court is asked to pass judgement on that which cannot be proved? What if, as in this case, claims are made about the effectiveness of “alternative cancer therapies” which are rejected by modern medical science, but which cannot be disproved?
It’s not trade mark infringement to use the registered trade mark of another trader in comparative advertising. For example, if you are promoting a new cola drink, you won’t infringe Coca-Cola’s registered trade mark by advertising that “it tastes better than Coke”. However, even if there is no trade mark infringement, comparative advertising is prone to being considered misleading or deceptive. Infinite Plus Pty Ltd recently found this out the hard way.
read more…