Geographical indications – “Champagne Jayne” – promotion on Internet and social media – misleading and deceptive conduct
Category: IP and Trade Practices
Scandinavian Tobacco Group Eersel BV v Trojan Trading Company Pty Ltd  FCA 1086 (9 October 2015) Trade marks – parallel importation – unpacking and repackaging due to tobacco labelling laws – whether...
Trade marks – objection to registration – deceptive similarity – likelihood of deception or confusion – MALTESERS vs MALTITOS
The Government has given industry one last chance to agree an industry code for a “graduated response” scheme for alleged online infringers before it will step in and impose its own scheme.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC is suing ISPs in Australia to identify subscribers alleged to have downloaded the film without permission
Written by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash. In the proceeding B. Braun Melsungen AG v Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd  FCA 1110, Pagone J held certain claims of two of B Braun’s patents for safety IV catheters valid and infringed by the conduct of Multigate. Both patents are for a safety needle protecting device for an intravenous catheter. Both claim the priority date of 12 June 1998 through the same chain of intermediate patents.
Written by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash. Where confidential information about a plan for corporate recapitalisation was disclosed and there was a subsequent development by the recipient and completion of the transaction without further recourse to discloser, the issue at trial was whether elements of confidentiality made out and whether equitable compensation is payable.
Case note written by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash. In Mastronardi Produce Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks  FCA 1021 (19 September 2014) Justice Gordon has overturned a decision of the Registrar to reject the mark ZIMA in respect of tomatoes.
Written by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash. In Vertical Leisure Limited & Anor v Skyrunner Pty Ltd & Anor  FCCA 2033 (5 September 2014), the Federal Circuit Court has extended the record by awarding $300k in additional damages for infringement of Vertical Leisure’s X-POLE mark registered for pole-dancing poles. Vertical Leisure is the Australian and international market leader in respect of such products.
Case note by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash – Australian entities that pay royalties to foreign-based licensors are required to withhold and remit to the Australian Tax Office a portion of that royalty, except to the extent an international tax agreement between Australia and the relevant country provides otherwise.
Case note by Peter Heerey AM, QC, Tom Cordiner & Alan Nash: correspondents for South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia
Stylis and Commissioner of Patents  AATA 796 28 October 2014
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has refused an application to review a particular decision of the Commissioner of Patents on the basis that the AAT lacks jurisdiction to review it.
Bennett, Greenwood and Middleton JJ unanimously upheld the primary judge’s decision in Miles v Commissioner of Patents  FCA 1017, a case involving a lapsing patent application.
Alphapharm submitted that, although AstraZeneca had succeeded, it had no need to litigate at all because Alphapharm had made it clear that it would desist from conduct of the kind that was alleged to be in infringement of patents, until such time as the result of the appeal in Ranbaxy was known. Nevertheless AstraZeneca commenced proceedings against Alphapharm. AstraZeneca submitted that not only was it entitled to its costs in the normal course, but also that those costs should be taxed on the special basis for which section 19(2) of the Patents Act provides.
Lisica v Commissioner of Patents  FCA 433 7 May 2014 – On appeal to the Court, the applicant did not seek to lead any expert evidence, which might have explained the area of the useful arts to which his invention would make a contribution or at least assist in understanding the language of the specification and the claims. Justice Jessup concluded that in those circumstances, the claim was neither clear nor succinct as required by s 40(3) of the Act: “As a statement marking out the area of the public monopoly which the applicant seeks, the claim falls well short of the standard of clarity required.” His Honour echoed the view expressed by the delegate that the applicant’s attempt to draft the specification and claims without professional assistance, had not helped him.