Tag: Court Decisions

1
Are Medical Diagnostic Methods Patent Ineligible by Convention?: CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc.
2
The Battle of the Supermarkets Vol. 2 – GINgle Bells, GINgle Bells, GIN All the Way
3
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
4
Dior Did Not SADDLE on Distinctive Character of Its Iconic Bag
5
Henkel Cleans Out FINISH Trade Marks
6
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
7
Can Dawgs Free-Ride on Bulls – Interpretation of Unfair Advantage for UK Trade Marks
8
Swatch v Samsung: App Store Operators are Not Intermediaries and Can be Liable for Trade Mark Infringement
9
High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia
10
Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK

Are Medical Diagnostic Methods Patent Ineligible by Convention?: CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc.

In CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that CareDx’s patent claims to methods of detecting organ transplant rejection were invalid as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 Affirming the district court, the Federal Circuit determined that CareDx’s claims “are directed to a natural law together with conventional steps to detect or quantify the manifestation of that law,”2 relying on “admissions” in the patents themselves that the claims recited only “conventional” techniques.’

Read More

The Battle of the Supermarkets Vol. 2 – GINgle Bells, GINgle Bells, GIN All the Way

It is beGINning to look a lot like a legal disputes saga between supermarkets in the UK. We have recently covered an ongoing dispute between Lidl and Tesco (see here), which relates to an alleged trade mark infringement. This time, Marks & Spencer (M&S) are suing the largest Europe’s discount grocery chain Aldi for copying their registered designs of the light-up Christmas gin bottles. This is the second legal case in recent times brought by M&S against Aldi, with the first one involving the famous Colin the Caterpillar cake, which has since been settled. Notably, the case at hand in relation to gin bottles demonstrates the benefits of registering designs in the UK, especially if such design is unique and has a significant value to the brand, and the brand would like to protect it against any copycats.

Read More

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

Dior Did Not SADDLE on Distinctive Character of Its Iconic Bag

Another unfavourable decision on non-traditional trade marks has landed, now in relation to Dior’s iconic Saddle bag. The EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal decided that Dior’s Saddle bag is not distinctive with respect to handbags. The decision is seen as surprising yet not unpredictable, given the recent history of unsuccessful trade mark applications for 3D signs (for example, see our previous article on the Moon Boot case here).

Read More

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

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

Can Dawgs Free-Ride on Bulls – Interpretation of Unfair Advantage for UK Trade Marks

The UK High Court has rejected an appeal filed by Monster Energy to register its trade mark ‘RED DAWG’. The court deemed that it could take unfair advantage of the famous energy drink brand’s trade mark ‘RED BULL’. The case (Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch)) was initially held before the UKIPO before Monster Energy’s appeal to the High Court.

Read More

Swatch v Samsung: App Store Operators are Not Intermediaries and Can be Liable for Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court of Justice of England & Wales has recently held Samsung liable for trade mark infringement for watch faces sold on the Samsung Galaxy App store (“Samsung’s Store”) and infringing Swatch Group’s trade mark rights. The judgement provides useful guidance on intermediary liability specifically regarding app store operators.

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

Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK

Considering the UK’s rich history of literature, it may be somewhat surprising to know that there was very little case law discussing whether copyright might subsist in a fictional character. However, on 8 June 2022, the UK courts finally tackled whether a fictional character can be protected under copyright law in Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC).

Read More

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