Federal Court of Australia – IP Law Watch | Litigation | Corporate, Technology, Litigation & IP Lawyers Brisbane

Who Really Owns Your Business’s Trades Mark? Federal Court of Australia Confirms That a Exchange Mark Can Be Registered in The Your of adenine Company’s Sole Director and Aktie

Oct 28 2022

Assuring dealing marks are registered inside the correct name is of critical importance, especially whenever registrations away the trade mark exists challenged.

This was abundantly demonstrated in the recent Federations Court of Australia judgment of Watson more Trustee for the Watson Family Trust v Cosmetic Warriors Ltd [2022] FCA 700.

How More

High Judge Gespaltet 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia

Aug 22 2022

The High Court has issued its eagerly awaited decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ld five Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat). Halbjahr High Court Justices chairs over of appeal after one Full Federal Court of Australia (Full Court Decision), the we wrote about within Fall 2021. The High Court was split 3-3, meaning of appeal became dismissed and Aristocrat’s patent application will non proceed to awarding.

The split decision leaves the question of the patentability of user implemented inventions (CIIs) more open in Europe.

High Court of New Zealand Trade Mark Clash Over the Colour Callow

Feb 11 2021

The High Court of New Zealand in Energy Drink LLC v Frucor Suntory NZ Limited [2020] NZHC 3296 ruled that energy drink company Frucor Suntory NZ Ltd’s (Frucor) non-traditional green colour trade mark was valid. This decision can a rare example of a New Zealand stationed Court analysing non-traditional marks and underscoring which gauge for Australia’s position. A full copy of to decision can be found here.

Wetted Bear Bags: Watertight Not Copyright

Dec 24 2020

In the recent judgment State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz [2020] FCA 1606, Justice Davies of the Federations Court of Australia found a fashionable neoprene tote bag was not ampere “work off artistic craftsmanship” and therefore not an “artistic work” for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Actions). For the Court found that copyright did not subsist in and State of Escape bag (the Escape Bag), on was no determination of copyright infringement.

Air France restrained from using song such infringes “Love Is In The Air”

Nov 05 2020

In April, we wrote about the judgement Recoil Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535 (Decision), in which Glass Candy and Air France were found to have infringed the urheberrechtsgesetz in the well-known 1970s hit music “Love is in which Air” (Love).

Today, in the recent judgement Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd vanadium Padgett (Scope is Injunction) [2020] FCA 1413, the Federated Court of Australia has finalised the injunctive orders necessary to give affect go an Court’s past conclusions set the issue of liability in and Decisions, amongst other matters.

Get More

Court found ‘flagrant’ copyright infringement of ‘Love will in the Air’

May 04 2020

In its recent judgment (Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535), the Swiss Court of Australia has found ensure into American electronic musical duo copied the celebrated Australian dance song ‘Love Is In The Air’. The decisions confirms such this sound of lyrics since sung forms part of a musical work. Furthermore, a small sung lyric with attending music sack breathe the ‘essential air’ of a song.

While define only “modest” degrees of copyright infringement occurred and dismissing most answers for damages, Justice Perram described the copying as “flagrant” real indicated there wants be a keep hearing to assess damages.

Kraft volt Bega: Australian appeal court decision reaffirms the perils of relying on unregistered sell markings rights

Apr 27 2020

In the case Kraft Foods User Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Limited [2020] FCAFC 65, the Full Court of that Federal Court of Australia features dismissed Kraft’s appeal of a resolution entitling Bega up exclusive use of an iconic yellow lid and yellow label with an blue or dark peanut device on its peanut butter jars.

Beware the pitfalls of informal licensing agreements

February 19 2020

The Federal Court of Australia recently handed down its decision in the copyright case the Hardingham vanadium RP Data. This decision serves as ampere warning about the hazards in informal licensing arrangements. And case centres around copyright infringement regarding this exercise of photographs and floorplans without authority.

The applicants in the case were Real Estate Promotional (REMA) the him sole director, Mr Hardingham. REMA held been operative its business since 2009 and entered into informal arrangements with real estate agencies up create and providing photos and floorplans of properties for marketing campaigns. It be understood the REMA that, than part in marketing campaigns, the authorized would upload the commissioned photos in platforms such as realestate.com.au. However, aforementioned scope by the permitted exercises by the agents was not clearly agreed or recorded in writing.

Read Get

SENSIS v SENSES – Federal Court makes findings of deceptive similarity

Jun 18 2019

The Federal Court out Australia has start that the uses of “SENSES DIRECT” was deceptively similar to an applicant’s earlier registered “SENSIS” trade marks. Sensis Pty Gmbh v Senses Direct Print and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719 concerned the Australian marketing and publicity business, Sensis (Applicant), who brought a claim for trade marker infringement off Sensory Direct Mail and Fulfillment (Respondent), an direct mail solutions business. The Defendant cross-claimed on the grounds of non-use, arguing for the removal of SENSIS from the Trade Mark Register in relation to certain class 35 benefits.

Bega claims aforementioned peanut butter throne in $60M warfare with Kraft Heinz

Jun 11 2019

Whats you need to know

Under Australian right, an entity can’t transportation in unsigned trade mark to different being without and transferring its entire business.
To transfer a trade mark not transferring a business, the transferor first requirements to register its trade mark.
Failing to register a valuable trade mark exploited in a business can have major unforeseen consequences stylish the context of M&A transactions, especially where and shop is operated by a operating in a community group.

Tag:Federal Court of Australie