Category: IP and Trade Practices

Taking a punt on the SPORTINGBET mark

Trade marks – misleading or deceptive conduct – interlocutory injunction –  user of “SPORTSBET” seeks restraint on use of “SPORTINGBET” – characteristics of online betting market – admissibility of focus group report – prima facie case – previous co-existence of rival names – balance of convenience – need to find new name

Mistake in pharmaceutical patent wording a hard pill to swallow

Patents – pharmaceutical products – paracetamol tablets – erroneous description of testing apparatus –whether claims should be construed so as to avoid the error – level of detail required in describing ingredients in pharmaceutical formulations – relevance of manufacturing and processing information in marketing authorisation application

Mining equipment patent lives up to (some of) its promises

Patents – novelty – whether language in claim described the function of integers for a locking mechanism or also specified position – utility – “promise” of the invention – “composite” promises – specification refers to multiple advantages conveyed by the invention – whether promises to be interpreted cumulatively or disjunctively

Similarities, not differences, the key to “substantial identity”

The Full Court of the Federal Court recently clarified the way in which the “side by side comparison” of trade marks is to be carried out in order to determine whether the two marks are substantially identical.

The clarification occurred in the context of an opposition to the registration of a trade mark pursuant to s 58 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  However, the Full Court’s clarification will have broader relevance as the question of whether a mark is substantially identical to another arises in several other sections of the TMA (for example sections 44, 120 and 122).

Get it right the first time: real trade mark owner can’t be subbed into application by assignment

It has been held that only an owner of a trade mark at the time the application is made can apply for registration, and that an applicant for a trade mark which would otherwise be deceptively or confusingly similar because an existing registered trade mark has a reputation which is confined to one State, cannot avoid that consequence by disclaiming the right to use in that State