Category: Technology

1
The ‘Standard’ of Use Evidence in the EU – Advertising and Promotion Can be Enough to Show Genuine Use of a Service Without That Service Actually Crossing the Pond
2
Old Lady Shows Her Youth With Win in Significant Trade Mark Ruling Concerning NFTs
3
Urgent Action Required of Australian Businesses to Protect Their Brands Online
4
The New Digital Frontiers: How IP is Adapting to Virtual Worlds, from NFTs to Virtual Products
5
High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia
6
The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)
7
The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)
8
The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)
9
Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship
10
F45 Cops a Punch in Further Australian Decision on Patents for Computer Implemented Inventions

The ‘Standard’ of Use Evidence in the EU – Advertising and Promotion Can be Enough to Show Genuine Use of a Service Without That Service Actually Crossing the Pond

Does evidence showing booking, advertising and selling services in the EU constitute genuine use if the service actually registered takes place abroad?

This was the question contemplated by a recent decision of the General Court. The case T-768/20 (Standard International Management LLC v EUIPO) addresses the use of trade marks in the EU where the relevant brand operates hotel and leisure facilities outside the jurisdiction.

Read More

Old Lady Shows Her Youth With Win in Significant Trade Mark Ruling Concerning NFTs

Juventus FC (affectionately nicknamed the “Old Lady”) has won a noteworthy ruling in its case of trade mark infringement brought against the non-fungible token (“NFT“) producer Blockeras s.r.l (“Blockeras”). The Rome Court of First Instance, on 20 July 2022, ruled that the unauthorised minting, advertising and sale of NFTs1 can infringe the trade mark rights of the relevant owner.

Read More

Urgent Action Required of Australian Businesses to Protect Their Brands Online

From 24 March 2022, Australian businesses have been able to register “.au” URLs (a Uniform Resource Locator or URL is the “address” to a website), rather than the traditional “.com.au”, “.net.au” or “.org.au” URLs.

The Australian .au Domain Administration (auDA) gave registrants (registrants are the “owners” of URLs) of “.com.au”, “.net.au” and “.org.au” URLs until 20 September 2022 to register the equivalent “.au” URL. That is, the registrant of www.australiandomain.com.au had priority over registering the www.australiandomain.au URL. From 3 October 2022, however, third parties have been free to register .au URLs, regardless of whether they own the corresponding “.com.au” etc domain name.

Read More

The New Digital Frontiers: How IP is Adapting to Virtual Worlds, from NFTs to Virtual Products

Virtual products, the metaverse, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have recently been expanding and receiving considerable attention from investors, the general public; as well as the art world. Within the span of a year, NFT-backed virtual works of art have been reaching new height, from Beeple, Everydays: The First 5000 Days (March 2021 – US$69.3 million) to The Merge (December 2021 – US$91.8 million). Today, the most valuable living artist in history is a virtual work of art author (Pak, author of The Merge).

Read More

High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia

The High Court has issued its eagerly awaited decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat). Six High Court Justices presided over the appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia (Full Court Decision), which we wrote about in November 2021. The High Court was split 3-3, meaning the appeal was dismissed and Aristocrat’s patent application will not proceed to grant.

The split decision leaves the question of the patentability of computer implemented inventions (CIIs) somewhat unresolved in Australia.

Read More

The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)

In a recent post, we examined the regulatory landscape of NFTs (see here). In our third of our series on NFTs, we will address the intellectual property concerns often highlighted by NFT critics.

Read More

The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)

In a recent alert, we painted the big NFT picture, highlighting what a non-fungible token (NFT) means and the opportunities they present (see here). In this second part of the NFT series, we will take a deeper look at local regulatory control (or lack thereof) in this uncharted territory.

Read More

The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)

NFTs have gone mainstream. But what are NFTs? Should your business develop its own NFT? How are they regulated? In The NFT Collection series of alerts, we will delve into these questions to help your business understand this new technology.

Read More

Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship

In July 2021, Australia was thrust into the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions as a result of the Australian Federal Court’s decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 – see our previous coverage here.

At first instance, the Court construed “inventor” as including “a person or thing that invents”.1 The decision was an appeal from a Patent Office hearing where the Office rejected a patent application in the name of Stephen L. Thaler as the creator of the “inventor”, AI system (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS)). As DABUS had autonomously generated the invention, for the purposes of the patent application Dr Thaler derived title to the invention from DABUS.

Read More

F45 Cops a Punch in Further Australian Decision on Patents for Computer Implemented Inventions

The scorecard against computer implemented inventions being patentable in Australia took another hit this week when the Federal Court revoked two innovation patents from global fitness giant, F45 in F45 Training Pty Ltd v Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 96. Justice Nicholas of the Federal Court held that F45’s innovation patents, which involved a computer implemented system for configuring and operating one or more fitness studios, were invalid and even if they were valid, rival fitness franchise Body Fit Training did not infringe them.

Read More

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.