Author - shalini.jayaweera

1
International Design Update
2
‘Like-Gating’? Facebook Says Dislike
3
Not a Free For All on Compilations! Big Additional Damages Payout
4
No Interlocutory Injunction? No Sweat
5
Permitted Trade Mark Usage as Google AdText

International Design Update

New Members to the Hague System

The Hague Agreement concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs (Hague System) is administered by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and has been around for almost 100 years. It is a mechanism, similar to the Madrid Protocol System for trade marks, of registering an industrial design in several countries by means of a single application, filed in one language and with one set of fees. The Hague System produces the same effect of a grant of protection in each of the designated contracting countries as if the design had been registered directly with each national office, unless protection is refused by the national office.

Read More

‘Like-Gating’? Facebook Says Dislike

Facebook Changes to its ‘Platform Policy’ can Affect Your Page

Facebook has announced a change to its Policy Platform that may affect the majority of users.

The policy change advises that Facebook will no longer allow advertisers to incentivise people to use social plugins or to like a Facebook Page (Page). This includes offering rewards, or gating apps or app content based on whether or not a person has liked a Page. It is still acceptable to incentivise people to login to your app, check-in at a place, or enter a promotion on your app’s Page.  Read More

Not a Free For All on Compilations! Big Additional Damages Payout

Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No.3) [2014] FCA 909

In the liability hearing of this matter (Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (2001) 91 IPR 488) Justice Yates found that:

  • the respondent, Tonnex, had infringed the copyright owned by the applicant, Dynamic, in a computer compatibility chart for printer and computer consumables called the ‘March 2008 CSV file’ (Copyright Work) in breach of the Copyright Act 1968 by reproducing a substantial part of the Copyright Work in its document called ‘Tonnex 2008’
  • Tonnex had contravened ss 52, 53(c) and 53(eb) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Read More

No Interlocutory Injunction? No Sweat

Unilever Australia Ltd v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (no.2) [2014] FCA 875

This case is the latest skirmish between two personal product giants, Unilever and Revlon, before war breaks out on 15 September 2014 when the trial begins.

The case concerns ‘clinical’ anti-perspirant deodorant products; Revlon’s product sold under the brand name Mitchum Clinical and Unilever’s products sold under the brand names ‘Rexona’ and ‘Dove’. 

The first interlocutory injunction hearing was brought by Unilever against Revlon in May 2014 concerned misleading representations alleged to have been made by Revlon in advertising. On balance, the Court refused to grant the injunction as it would have a serious adverse impact on the worldwide marketing campaign for Revlon and the trial could be held in July 2014. The July trial was eventually adjourned to 15 September 2014. Read More

Permitted Trade Mark Usage as Google AdText

Google AdWords Policy Change for Australia

As reported in April 2013, Google amended its AdWords policy in Australia allowing a company to purchase a competitor’s trade mark as a keyword in order to trigger sponsored ads during Google searches.

Google has now gone one step further and allowed resellers and informational sites from 27 July 2014 to use trade marks in ad text in Australia and New Zealand under certain circumstances. Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.