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
Category: IP and Trade Practices
Patents – infringement and validity – safety system used for the detection of obstructions in the path of a moving part of machinery, such as press brakes
Patents – method for identifying traits from genetic make-up of cows – manner of manufacture, inventive step, sufficiency, novelty, fair basis, clarity, definition and utility.
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
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
Copyright – Infringement – Innocent infringement – Damages
Patents – infringement – claim construction – validity – novelty – obviousness – misleading or deceptive conduct – unjustified threats – costs
Trade marks – misleading or deceptive conduct – passing off – whether separate reputation in mark – differences in get up – unjustified threats – delay in bringing infringement action – whether claimant acted with due diligence
Patents – complete specification – best method – “performing the invention” – whether feature omitted from specific part of the best method known to the applicant for performing the invention
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).
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
Copyright – extension of ex parte freezing order – whether duty of candour requires applicant to identify potential bases to find an implied licence – whether freezing order should cover potential additional damages
Patents – amendment – application to amend – fair basis – whether “discrete, unitary disclosure” of combinations of features necessary United States Gypsum Company v CSR Building Products Ltd  FCA 595 The applicant...
Patents – amendment – application to amend to avoid inutility claims – applications limited to deletions of positive statements in the specification concerning the utility of the invention – exercise of discretion