Australia – Page 11 – IP Law Watch

Designing Fashion: How to be Inspired Not to Copy

Jul 22 2015

Earlier this year, K&L Gates hosted its annual Fashion Law Breakfast in conjunction with the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival. A fantastic panel of both fashion and legal experts divulged tips on inspiring creativity in the fashion industry and combating copyists.

Following trend forecasts and drawing inspiration from the catwalks overseas is nothing new or particularly sinister. However, there is a clear distinction between drawing inspiration and copying.

Fashion brands need to have a culture that sets clear expectations when it comes to drawing the line between inspiration and copying. Creating something new and innovative needs to be part of a fashion brand’s modus operandi. Junior designers with their fresh approach and cutting edge design skills should be encouraged to work on hero collection pieces.

Parody Marks, Reputation and ‘Misleading and Deceptive Conduct’ in Australia

Jul 21 2015

In May 2013, Catchoftheday.com.au Pty Ltd applied to register the following marks:

BP 2 BP1

Target Australia Pty Ltd (Target), a well known Australian retailer, opposed registration of the marks. It argued that under section 42(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), use of the Trade Marks would be contrary to law.

Tamawood v Habitare: a Recent Australian Decision on Copyright Infringement in Building Designs

May 22 2015

Earlier this week the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Tamawood v Habitare Developments, a copyright infringement case in respect of project home designs.

Habitare Developments had engaged designer/builder Tamawood to create designs for project homes for a new development. However, due to a falling out between the parties, Habitare Developments ultimately engaged architects Mondo to create the final plans for the development and engaged another builder to construct the houses. Tamawood commenced proceedings against all parties for copyright infringement. The respondents denied that Tamawood’s designs had been used as a starting point and that copyright had been infringed.

Australian ISPs Ordered to Hand Over Customer Details in P2P Copyright Action

Apr 09 2015

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317

In November 2014, IP Law Watch reported on attempts by the rights holder of the film Dallas Buyers Club to compel Australian ISPs to disclose the identities of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared copies of the film.

On 7 April 2015, Justice Perram of the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Voltage Pictures LLC, ordering six ISPs to disclose the details of 4,726 customers.

The judgment has been widely reported in the Australian media as a landmark decision and a game changer in the battle regarding online piracy. In fact, the kind of order granted by Justice Perram is far from revolutionary. For many years, civil procedure rules at both state and federal levels have enabled a party to seek orders requiring a third party to produce documents or give evidence as to the identity of a prospective respondent. There are decisions going back as far as the 1970s in which this kind of preliminary discovery order has been granted (see for example Exley v Wyong Shire Council (10 December 1976, Master Allen, unreported) and Stewart v Miller [1979] 2 NSWLR 128).

International Design Update

Mar 31 2015

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.

Fashion Law

Mar 16 2015

“The great thing about fashion is that it always looks forward.” Oscar de la Renta

We are excited to bring you the second edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues in the crossroads between fashion and the law.

From choosing brand names and protecting distinctive elements of your product and prints, to exclusivity agreements with retailers and protecting your brand online, Fashion Law provides you with valuable information at all stages of your journey, from kick-starting your business through to the runway and beyond.

Please click here to read the Autumn/Winter 2015 edition of Fashion Law.

Fashion Law Image

High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia

Feb 19 2015

On 13 February 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) heard and granted Yvonne D’Arcy’s application for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court of Australia’s (Full Federal Court) decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115.

The unanimous decision of the five-judge bench of the Full Federal Court was that Myriad Genetics Inc’s patent claims directed to particular isolated BRCA1 genes were patentable subject matter in Australia.

Single Patent Filing and Examination in Australia and New Zealand Almost a Reality

Feb 17 2015

As we reported late last year, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 was read by the Australian House of Representatives. On 9 February 2015, the bill passed the Australia Senate and will soon become law in Australia as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015.

One significant aspect of the new law is the introduction of a Single Application Process (SAP) and a Single Examination Process (SEP) for Australia and New Zealand patent applications. Read More

Australia’s Very Exclusive Patent Licensee Club

Feb 11 2015

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 2

The Full Federal Court of Australia (Court) has held that an ‘exclusive licensee’ within the definition of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act), must be granted the exclusive right to undertake ALL of the activities falling within the meaning of “exploit”. Accordingly, a grant of a licence to advertise, market, promote, sell and distribute, but not manufacture, does not create an “exclusive licensee”, as defined in the Patents Act. There can only be one exclusive licensee and the patentee cannot reserve any of the exclusive rights to exploit to itself. Read More

Now Trending: #jesuischarlie Trade Marks

Jan 29 2015

Can you Register a Rallying cry or Trending Slogan as a Trade Mark in Australia?

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, supporters of free speech and freedom of expression rallied behind the phrase JE SUIS CHARLIE. Within two days, “#jesuischarlie” had been tweeted over five million times. Less than a week after the shooting, trade mark applications for both “Charlie Hebdo” and “jesuischarlie” were filed in Australia. This follows as many as 50 applications for the phrase in France and similar applications in the United States, European Union and Belgium. Read More

Tag:Australia