Limping Trade Marks and Distinctiveness in Australia
Oyster Bay’s Wine Bottle Trade Mark Application Rejected
In 2012, New Zealand winery Oyster Bay filed a trade mark application as follows:
Oyster Bay’s Wine Bottle Trade Mark Application Rejected
In 2012, New Zealand winery Oyster Bay filed a trade mark application as follows:
Acting on a complaint that fake sports shoes were sold in Mong Kok, a popular shopping district for trendy teens and tourists, Hong Kong Customs went into action and raided retail shops and warehouses.
Customs Officers seized suspected fakes, including 1,905 pairs of sports shoes, to a tune of HKD1.67 million. The suspected head of the fake goods syndicate along with six other people were arrested.
The arrests included a 16 year old and Customs has appealed to young people to be on guard against dodgy dealings when working in summer jobs. Read More
The drama craze and football fever had increased the popularity of set-top boxes, sold at the cost of a few hundred Hong Kong dollars and easy to use. Users can simply connect the box to a TV to enjoy television dramas, sports and even real-time broadcasts from different countries.
Problems arise when set-top boxes are jail broken by sellers, permitting access to unauthorized content. Users and sellers should beware of the potential copyright issues arising from such use. Read More
Prior to commencement of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, which came into effect in April 2013, the Australian Patent Office was inundated with requests for examination from applicants wishing to have their applications examined under the current law.
This flood of examination requests led the Patent Office to last year advise that first examination reports would likely issue, on average, about 19 months after examination is requested. We have recently been advised by the Patent Office that the backlog of applications awaiting examination is starting to clear and that examination reports are now issuing, on average, about 16 months after examination is requested. Read More
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:
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
Today, a five-judge bench of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia unanimously decided that Myriad Genetics Inc’s (Myriad) patent covering the isolated BRCA1 gene (Patent) is valid.
In Yvonne D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor (5 September 2014) the Full Federal Court rejected the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court, when it found in 2013 that certain claims of a closely related U.S. Patent of Myriad were invalid as the claim to isolated nucleic acid was a claim to a “product of nature” and not patentable subject matter.
For the pro-patent lobby and the biotech industry, this is good news for innovation in life sciences in Australia.
New Zealand patent law has been completely overhauled and modernised. Details of the changes can be found here. The new law commences on 13 September 2014, which is only two weeks away!
The new provisions raise the requirements for patentability and the requirements for patent specifications and bring New Zealand patent law into substantial conformity with the patent laws of other developed countries, such as Australia. Among the new provisions is a provision which denies patentability to alleged inventions where the contribution to the art lies solely in it being a computer program. Read More
The Full Federal Court of Australia has upheld the first instance judgment of the Federal Court of Australia that the three patents protecting AstraZenica’s rosuvastatin products (marketed as Crestor) are invalid.
In judgment handed down on 12 August 2014, the court unanimously dismissed the appeals by AstraZeneca against generic pharmaceutical companies Apotex Pty Ltd, Watson Pharma Pty Ltd and Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd. Read More
Additional Damages for Past Trade Mark Infringements
In June 2014 the Federal Court made its first award of additional damages for trade mark infringement under the ‘Raising the Bar’ amendments to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (TM Act). We reported on the original judgment in our 23 June 2014 alert, which you can find here.
Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down another judgment in that case. This second judgement suggests that additional damages may also be available for trade mark infringements that occurred before 15 April 2013.
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.