A number of recent Federal Court decisions have highlighted the importance of correctly identifying inventors and owners in the context of patent applications. Anakin Pty Ltd v Chatswood BBQ King Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1467 illustrates the importance of clearly identifying ownership in the context of Trade Mark rights. The first applicant and registered trade …
>> Read more
Nestle has lodged a Federal Court appeal against a recent Australian Trade Marks Office decision not to register its popular KIT KAT chocolate bar as a shape trade mark. The Registrar’s Delegate, Terry Williams found in favour of supermarket giant Aldi Stores who opposed the registration of Nestle’s four bar chocolate product pursuant to s.41, …
>> Read more
Trade Mark Application No 1241420 has recently been advertised as accepted in Australia. The trade mark consists of “a Eucalyptus Radiata scent” for golf tees and was accepted without the need for the applicant to file any evidence of use.
The decision of the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Wm. Wrigley Jr Company [2008] APO 20 provides an interesting counterpoint to the decision of Gyles J in Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis. The claims of the opposed application related to a method of coating comestibles (principally chewing gum), which included …
>> Read more
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has shut down the ‘Designer Brand Outlet’ website. The ACCC alleged that false, misleading and deceptive representations were made on the website and that some of the clothes supplied were counterfeit copies. The ACCC release is here.
It seems that the Federal Court is not the only one to take issue with the current conduct of IP litigation in Australia. The report of the Review of the National Innovation System “Venturous Australia – building strength in innovation” includes a section headed “The costs of enforcing IP rights”. The report’s solution to the …
>> Read more
As reported elsewhere , the High Court last Tuesday granted IceTV special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s finding that it had infringed Nine’s copyright in its TV schedule. The transcript of the special leave hearing is now available and makes for interesting reading. Gummow J gives some interesting clues as to how the …
>> Read more
The first serious consideration of section 7(4) of the Patents Act 1990 relating to innovative step, the decision of Gyles J in Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1225, gives a somewhat unexpected interpretation of the phrase “substantial contribution to the working of the invention”. Gyles J commences with a concise …
>> Read more
In Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, previously mentioned here, Gyles J concluded his consideration of novelty with the comment that: Anticipation is deadly but requires the accuracy of a sniper, not the firing of a 12 gauge shotgun. However his Honour’s findings on novelty, and in particular the …
>> Read more
Over 100 years ago Lord Esher, in Ungar v Sugg (1892) 9 RPC 113, opined: that a man had better have his patent infringed, or have anything happen to him in this world, short of losing all his family by influenza, than have a dispute about a patent. His patent is swallowed up, and he …
>> Read more
