Tag: Australia

1
Henkel Cleans Out FINISH Trade Marks
2
Australian Government Commits to Protecting First Nations Visual Art
3
Who Really Owns Your Business’s Trade Mark? Federal Court of Australia Confirms That a Trade Mark Can Be Registered in The Name of a Company’s Sole Director and Shareholder
4
Urgent Action Required of Australian Businesses to Protect Their Brands Online
5
Keep an Eye on Your Mailbox – Appoint a UK Representative for Trade Marks Filed Through WIPO
6
High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia
7
Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages
8
Latvian Citizen Fined US$4.5 Million and Sentenced to More than 4 Years of Imprisonment for Fraudulent Trade Mark Renewal Scheme
9
The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)
10
Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under

Henkel Cleans Out FINISH Trade Marks

It’s all out in the wash: Henkel Australia Pty Ltd (Henkel) has successfully removed two dishwashing tablet trade marks owned by Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Reckitt) from the register.

In the recent Federal Court decision RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1042, Rofe J simultaneously overturned an interlocutory injunction against Henkel and declared that two trade marks for dishwashing tablets owned by Reckitt should be removed from the register for non-use.

Read More

Australian Government Commits to Protecting First Nations Visual Art

“80% of the souvenirs sold in Australia purporting to represent First Nations cultures are in fact imitation products. These inauthentic items have no connection to First Nations peoples and are often cheaply made imports.”

This extraordinary statistic was presented by Ann Sudmalis MP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs which tabled the 2018 Report on the impact of inauthentic art and craft in the style of First Nations peoples (Report).

Read More

Who Really Owns Your Business’s Trade Mark? Federal Court of Australia Confirms That a Trade Mark Can Be Registered in The Name of a Company’s Sole Director and Shareholder

Ensuring trade marks are registered in the correct name is of critical importance, especially when registration of the trade mark is challenged.

This was amply demonstrated in the recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Watson as Trustee for the Watson Family Trust v Cosmetic Warriors Ltd [2022] FCA 700.

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

Keep an Eye on Your Mailbox – Appoint a UK Representative for Trade Marks Filed Through WIPO

A direct United Kingdom (UK) trade mark application to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) contains a requirement to name a UK address for service. In contrast, it has been a standing practice of the UKIPO to process International Trade Mark Registrations via the Madrid Protocol designating the UK without requiring a UK service address. The UKIPO would only require to specify a UK service address in circumstances where objections or oppositions are raised in relation to the International Trade Mark Registrations during prosecution. However, the recent decision in MARCO POLO (O/681/22) has called this UKIPO’s practice into question.

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

Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages

The rule against double recovery, which operates to ensure plaintiffs are not compensated twice in respect of the same loss, is well-known and generally arises for judicial consideration where there are joint and several tortfeasors. The recent decision of Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116 by Judge Long SC of the District Court of Queensland considered the rule against double recovery in the context of separate proceedings against different defendants. This case confirms that where damages for copyright infringement are compensatory, the fact that a plaintiff has already received an amount of damages from one infringer will serve to reduce the damages payable by the other.

Read More

Latvian Citizen Fined US$4.5 Million and Sentenced to More than 4 Years of Imprisonment for Fraudulent Trade Mark Renewal Scheme

Misleading renewal notices to trademark owners continue to cause confusion and, in some cases, unnecessary fees paid to fraudulent schemers that do not result in renewal of a trademark registration. Recently, a Latvian citizen was sentenced to more than four years in U.S. prison and fined over US$4.5 million in restitution, after he pleaded guilty to a three-year scheme that defrauded thousands of U.S. trademark owners of over US$1.2 million.

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

Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under

The issue of contributory infringement of a patent under the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) does not often arise for consideration by the Australian judicial system. When it does arise, the question of whether or not the product supplied is a ‘staple commercial product’ under the relevant provisions of the Act is always of particular interest.

In only a few cases has the impugned product been held to be a staple commercial product, and so any case that expands upon that product class is a particularly valuable aid. It is therefore of interest that the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has recently considered contributory infringement in Hood v Down Under Enterprises International Pty Limited [2022] FCAFC 69.

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.