Archive: August 2021

1
Full Federal Court Decision Reaffirms That There Is No Infringement By Authorisation Under Australian Trade Mark Law
2
Board of Directors of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Authority Issues IP Legislation Update
3
Guide: How to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights in China
4
AI Can Invent – Australia is First to Recognise Non-Human Inventorship
5
Registrability of Shape Marks and Technical Function of Complex Products: The Pirelli Case

Full Federal Court Decision Reaffirms That There Is No Infringement By Authorisation Under Australian Trade Mark Law

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reaffirmed that a registered trade mark can only be infringed by the primary user of a trade mark and there is no concept of authorisation of infringement recognised under Australian trade mark law.

Read More

Board of Directors of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Authority Issues IP Legislation Update

The Board of Directors of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Authority recently issued the DIFC Intellectual Property Regulations (IP Regulations). The IP Regulations took effect on 5 July 2021 and were issued pursuant to the DIFC Intellectual Property Law, DIFC Law No. of 2019 (IP Law).

Read More

Guide: How to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights in China

This step-by-step guide sets out the actions to be taken upon discovering an infringement of an intellectual property right (IPR) in the People’s Republic of China (China). The IPRs addressed in this guide include copyright, trademark, patent, and unfair competition (including counterfeiting).

View the full article here

AI Can Invent – Australia is First to Recognise Non-Human Inventorship

The Australian Federal Court recently handed down its first-instance judgement in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 where the central issue considered was whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system could be an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) and its corresponding regulations. The Court found that an AI system can be an inventor – where ‘inventor’ may be construed broadly to include a ‘person or thing that invents’1. This decision puts Australia in the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions – for now. Given the subject-matter and controversy generated by this decision, an appeal to the Full Federal Court is almost certain.

Read More

Registrability of Shape Marks and Technical Function of Complex Products: The Pirelli Case

The CJEU has rendered its decision on the invalidity actions brought by Yokohama against the below shape mark filed by Pirelli. The mark represents a single groove of a tyre tread, covering “tyres, solid, semi-pneumatic and pneumatic tyres, rims and covers for vehicle wheels of all kinds, vehicle wheels of all kinds, inner tubes, wheel rims, parts, accessories and spare parts for vehicle wheels of all kinds“ in class 12.

Read More

Copyright © 2020, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.