Tag:Litigation

1
Battle of the Bags: UNIQLO Sues SHEIN in Japan Over Viral Handbag Dupe
2
PayPal Inc. [2023] APO 54: PayPal Machine Stalls in the Face of Intangible Resistance
3
Burger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412
4
Artificial Sweeter Decision Sours Halal Authority: Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 175
5
In Starch Contrast: Australian Patent Office Makes key Finding on use of Trade Marks in Patent Specifications
6
Just Because the Court can, Doesn’t Mean it will: The Difficulty in Seeking to Avoid an Injunction Following a Finding of Copyright Infringement in the UK
7
Honey, I Lost the Trade Mark: MANUKA HONEY Declared not Exclusive to New Zealand
8
The One That Got Away: Popstar Katy Perry Outperformed by Australian Dark Horse in Longstanding David and Goliath Trade Mark Dispute in Australia
9
A Lidl Decision with big Implications – UK High Court Finds that Tesco’s Clubcard Logo Infringes Lidl’s logo
10
Proposed PTAB Rules up for Comment

Battle of the Bags: UNIQLO Sues SHEIN in Japan Over Viral Handbag Dupe

In January 2024, UNIQLO CO., LTD. (UNIQLO) announced that it had filed a lawsuit before the Tokyo District Court against Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd., and SHEIN Japan Co., Ltd. (collectively, SHEIN Parties). UNIQLO alleges that the SHEIN Parties have infringed Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act by selling dupes of UNIQLO’s popular round mini shoulder bag, which went viral on TikTok last year due to its minimalistic, water-repellent exterior and ability to hold a surprisingly large volume of products for its size. UNIQLO is demanding that the SHEIN parties cease selling the dupe bags and pay damages incurred as a result of sale of the SHEIN Parties’ dupe products.

Read More

PayPal Inc. [2023] APO 54: PayPal Machine Stalls in the Face of Intangible Resistance

The recent refusal of a patent application by PayPal Inc. at the Australian Patent Office sheds light on the challenges surrounding the patentability of AI and machine learning systems (PayPal Inc. [2023] APO 54). The rejected application, which proposed a system for generating more accurate recommendations using AI machine learning, faced scrutiny on the grounds that, while the combination of machine learning models was innovative, it did not offer a substantial technical contribution beyond standard computer usage.

Read More

Burger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412

In McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.

Read More

Artificial Sweeter Decision Sours Halal Authority: Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 175

The Halal Certification Authority Pty Ltd (HCA) is a for-profit company that provides certification services to third parties. It is the owner of the following trade mark registered for issuing halal certification to businesses and individuals for goods and services if religious and technical requirements are met:

(HCA Badge).
Read More

In Starch Contrast: Australian Patent Office Makes key Finding on use of Trade Marks in Patent Specifications

In the field of intellectual property, the interplay between trade marks and patent claims is very rarely discussed, given the distinct scope of protection provided by each. In Australia and New Zealand, patent examiners tend to raise an immediate clarity objection when a trade mark finds its way into a claim. This concern arises from the fact that a trade mark is an identifier of origin, and products bearing them can undergo variations across jurisdictions and time frames. This makes the intended scope of the claim unclear in many situations. Consequently, Australian and New Zealand examiners commonly raise objections based on clarity when trade marks feature in patent claims during the examination process.

Read More

Just Because the Court can, Doesn’t Mean it will: The Difficulty in Seeking to Avoid an Injunction Following a Finding of Copyright Infringement in the UK

As reported previously in our blog post here, earlier this year the High Court of England and Wales found in Lidl’s favour regarding allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement by Tesco. However, Tesco has suffered a further loss following a supplementary hearing focused on what the most appropriate form of relief was for copyright infringement (although it was agreed by the parties that Lidl was entitled to an injunction in light of findings of trade mark infringement and passing off).

Read More

Honey, I Lost the Trade Mark: MANUKA HONEY Declared not Exclusive to New Zealand

An attempt to trade mark the term MANUKA HONEY in New Zealand has come to a sticky end. Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks Natasha Alley found that the term MANUKA HONEY was descriptive of the goods it claimed and MHAS had “fallen short of establishing the necessary distinctiveness, both inherent and acquired”.1

Read More

The One That Got Away: Popstar Katy Perry Outperformed by Australian Dark Horse in Longstanding David and Goliath Trade Mark Dispute in Australia

In the recent Australian Federal Court decision of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364, Justice Markovic aptly explained “a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name” and held that international popstar Katy Perry infringed Australian clothing designer Katie Taylor’s registered trade mark for KATIE PERRY by selling clothing merchandise in Australia branded with her Katy Perry stage name.

Read More

A Lidl Decision with big Implications – UK High Court Finds that Tesco’s Clubcard Logo Infringes Lidl’s logo

In a recent decision, the High Court of England and Wales has found that Tesco’s use of the yellow and blue Tesco Clubcard logos (reproduced below) infringed Lidl’s trade marks (see the relevant Lidl marks below) and also gave rise to copyright infringement and passing off.

Read More

Proposed PTAB Rules up for Comment

The USPTO on April 21, 2023 proposed a variety of changes to the pre-institution requirements and briefing process for post-grant proceedings, including both IPRs and PGRs. Among the proposed changes are broad amendments to the discretionary denial frameworks, which are intended to provide clarity, curb abusive litigation tactics, and generally align procedure with the objectives of the AIA. The deadline for submitting comments and suggestions related to these rules is June 20, 2023. The proposed rules provide valuable insight into the future of post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. An overview of these changes is outlined below, and additional details follow.

  • Parallel Proceedings – The USPTO is considering changes to the Fintiv framework, including the elimination of current factors 1, 2, and 5, a requirement for a Sotera stipulation, and a grace period that would exempt petitions filed within 6 months of service of the complaint from being discretionarily denied under this rule.
  • 325(d) Framework – The USPTO is considering a rule that would reign in the application of discretionary denial under 325(d) by limiting its application to art or arguments that had been “previously addressed,” or actually evaluated by the patent office as articulated on the record, such as in a rejection, notice of allowance, or examiner interview. Mere citation in an IDS will no longer meet the standard. Prior art will only be considered “substantially the same” where it contains the same teaching relied upon in the petition, and that teaching was addressed by the patent office. 
  • Serial Petitions – The USPTO is considering replacing the existing framework for serial petitions with a rule that will deny any serial or follow-on IPR petition filed by: (1) the same petitioner; (2) a real party in interest to that petitioner; (3) a party with a significant relationship to that  petitioner; or (4) a party who previously joined an instituted IPR filed by that petitioner. There will be an exception where the earlier petition was not resolved on the merits of the petition, or where exceptional circumstances are shown.
  • Prior Adjudications – The USPTO is contemplating stricter requirements where a prior final adjudication by a district court or in a post-grant proceeding upheld the validity of claims that substantially overlap the challenged claims, essentially requiring the petitioner (1) either has standing to challenge the validity of the patent in district court or intends to pursue commercialization, (2) was not a real party in interest to the party who unsuccessfully challenged the claims, and (3) meets the heightened burden of compelling merits.
  • Micro and Small Entities – The USPTO is mulling changes that would protect under-resourced entities by denying institution where the patent owner (1) claimed micro or small entity status at the time of filing; (2) did not exceed a gross income cap in the calendar year preceding filing of the petition; and (3) was commercializing a product covered by the challenged claim at the time of filing.
  • For-Profit Entities – The USPTO is contemplating a rule that would deny any IPR or PGR petition by a for-profit entity that has not been sued or threatened with infringement of the challenged patent, is not otherwise practicing in the field of the challenged patent, and is not in “substantial relationship” with an entity to which the rule would not apply.

The USPTO has also proposed changes to the disclosure requirements, what constitutes compelling merits, and termination by settlement filing requirements. An in-depth discussion of each suggested change is included below.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.