Australian Trademarks Lawyer & Attorneys : Nicholas Weston Law Firm : Copyrights, Intellectual Property

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cambridge University Press is proud to release the latest detailed and scholarly insight into Australian Intellectual Property Law, written by reputable academics for both legal professionals and students. The book offers a detailed discussion of the black-letter aspects of the law, with the primary emphasis on the legal principles and complexities within.

Australian Intellectual Property Law, by Mark J. Davison, Ann M. Monotti (both Monash University, Victoria) and Leanne Wiseman (Griffith University, Queensland) is now available at a special 20% discount price until March 14, 2008. To purchase within Australia, click HERE. To purchase within the US, click HERE.

To apply the discount, simply enter the promotion code "AIPL08" when prompted at the checkout stage of your order, and the price will be automatically updated. Hurry, offer ends March 14, 2008.

• Email This
• Print

Two Sydney men have been charged on summons with selling fake OMO, or more precisely, with selling goods with a falsely applied trade mark contrary to section 148(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Act) and importing goods with a falsely applied trade mark contrary to section 148(d) of the Act. They will front the Downing Centre Local Court on Tuesday 12 February 2008.

According to the Australian Federal Police press release, it will be alleged that between 22 March 2006 and 30 August 2007 about 185 tonnes of counterfeit product (washing powder and buckets) were imported into Australia.

The maximum penalty for these offences is two years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $55,000.

Customs officers have a marvellous sense of humour about piracy. (Photo: Australian Customs Service).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The most recent development in a protracted legal battle between two chocolate heavy weights, Cadbury Schweppes and Darrell Lea, is a decision by the Trade Marks Office (copy available HERE) to suspend three pending opposition proceedings which relate to some trade mark applications made by Cadbury for certain shades of the colour purple.  The oppositions have been suspended pending final determination of a related passing-off proceeding in the Federal Court. 

Background (in Brief)

In February 2003, Cadbury commenced proceedings against Darrell Lea in the Federal Court of Australia claiming that Darrell Lea's use of a shade of purple in connection with its chocolate confectionary business amounted to conduct that was misleading and deceptive, and also constituted passing off ("the passing off proceeding").  For those who have, understandably, lost track of the course of these proceedings, a comprehensive summary of the numerous court decisions is provided by the Delegate at paragraph 50 of the present decision. The next stage in the passing off proceeding will be mediation likely to be followed by a further hearing before Heerey J., if it does not settle. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  has approved a new provider of domain name dispute resolution services. It is the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) in Prague.

The decision was made at a Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors on 23 January 2008 and has just been released.

ICANN effectively runs the internet and is responsible for policies on the registration of domain names and the resolution of disputes about them.

The significance of the decision is global, in that the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides that complaints about the ownership and registration of domain names must be brought before ‘one of the administrative – dispute-resolution service providers’ approved by ICANN.

At the present, the approved providers are:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Hon. Neil Brown QC has just returned from the US where he delivered a paper outlining the process for the arbitration of disputes over internet domain names under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP scheme essentially deals with complaints by trade mark owners that someone else is trespassing on their trade mark by registering a domain name.

A copy of the paper can be downloaded here.

The paper may be of particular interest to legal practitioners representing clients in proceedings under the UDRP that concern generic Top Level Domains or gTLDs, (eg: .com, .net, .org, .coop, .aero, .biz, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro).

Neil Brown, a contributor to this blog, is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Domain Name Panel and the WIPO Arbitration Centre's List of Neutrals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Mayne Industries Pty Ltd v Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 27, Mayne Industries Pty Ltd (Mayne) was the registered owner of ‘a shape kind of sign’ for goods in class 6 described as ‘fence droppers’ comprising ‘a rod bent to an S shape.’ A fence dropper is a galvanised metal article designed to attach to agricultural fences to maintain a constant distance between the horizontal wires, and to act as a substitute for fence posts. Mayne commenced infringement proceedings under s 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Act) against Advanced Engineering Group Pty Ltd (Advanced), the importer of fence droppers containing an S loop substantially identical with the shape of the S loop depicted in the applicant’s trade mark.

Advanced contended that Mayne sought to enforce a monopoly over certain ‘functional features’ and that once the evidence demonstrates that the shape serves some functional significance, use of the shape (the trade mark) cannot be use as a trade mark. Advanced also relied upon a defence under s 25 of the Act that the trade mark contained a sign (the S loop shape) that described a fence dropper that was formerly exploited by Mayne under an expired patent and, under its cross-application, sought to have the Register rectified by cancelling the registration under s 87(1) of the Act.