August 2025 – IP Law Watch

Busted! Melbourne International Film Festival Director Subject to Urgent Interlocutory Injunction Over Moral Rights

Aug 12 2025

On 6 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) ordered that Projector Films Pty Ltd and director David Ngo (the Respondents) be stopped from promoting, causing to promote or authorising the Melbourne International Film Festival (the MIFF) to show the documentary titled “Never Get Busted!” unless the Applicant Stephen McCallum was attributed as “Principal Director.”

Karen Walker Has a Runaway Win Before the Trade Marks Office

Aug 11 2025

In a recent decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office, Karen Walker Limited successfully opposed the registration of the mark ‘Runaway the Label‘ for clothing, footwear and headgear (class 25) and online retail services (class 35). We focus here on Delegate’s findings on deceptive similarity under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Let’s Make it a Date–Best Method and the Filing Date of the Earliest Complete Application

Aug 11 2025

In the recent decision of NOCO Company v. Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887¹, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.

Life After Skykick: UKIPO Issued New Guidelines

Aug 06 2025

Following the Sky v. SkyKick judgement, issued in December 2024, the UKIPO has now issued a practice note providing applicants with guidance on drafting and filing trade mark applications in the UK. Sky v SkyKick highlighted that filing an application for unduly broad specifications of goods and services with no genuine intention to use the mark can constitute bad faith and applicants are now provided with the tools to avoid the most common pitfalls.

Optional Refrigeration Freezes Induced Patent Infringement Claim

Aug 01 2025

By: Peter Giunta and Sarika Madan

In Metacel Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Rubicon Research Private Ltd., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the optional product storage temperatures stated in Rubicon’s proposed generic product label did not induce infringement of US Patent No. 10,610,502 because Rubicon’s proposed label only optionally permits the refrigeration storage claimed by Metacel’s patent, and clearly instructs room temperature storage.¹In so holding, the CAFC affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.²

Archive:August 2025