admin – Page 15 – IP Law Watch

Down N’ Out – Down on their luck

Jun 02 2020

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 193

Sydney burger chain Down N’ Out is looking to appeal Federal Court Justice Anna Katzmann’s ruling in a case brought by American fast food giant In-N-Out Burgers, Inc. (In-N-Out). In her decision handed down earlier this year, Justice Katzmann found that Down N’ Out infringed In-N-Out’s registered trade marks and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. At a hearing last week, her Honour made declarations regarding Down N’ Out’s infringing conduct and granted Down N’ Out leave to appeal the orders. The determination of compensation will take place after any appeal.

Protection of store layout under copyright law: the KIKO case

May 30 2020

The Italian Supreme Court decision on the KIKO case (Cass. 780/2020) is the most recent judgement made in the wake of the Cofemel decision (case C-683/17) and follows the UK IPEC decision in Response Clothing (click here for our previous blog post).

In this latest development, KIKO S.p.a, a well-known make-up store was able to secure copyright protection for its signature store layout, made of its open space entrance with digital screens, the white/black/pink/purple color combination, the disco lighting effects, the size, proportions, materials and position of furniture.

Addressing Possible Limits of COPPA Safe Harbors

May 21 2020

On May 18, 2020, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement regarding concerns of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Safe Harbor programs. Sparked by the ouster of the mobile gaming player, Miniclip S.A., from the Children’s Advertising Review Unit’s (CARU) Safe Harbor program, the FTC announced action against Miniclip to order the cessation of its alleged misrepresentations regarding Miniclip’s participation in the self-regulatory program. A proposed settlement Consent Order was agreed and will published in the Federal Register for public comment shortly.

What is the Italian historical trade mark?

May 11 2020

We increasingly hear about “brand value” along with figures and suggested strategies to assist brands in difficult times.

In Italy new provisions have been approved to recognise the value of the so called historical trade marks (ie. marchio storico). To be clear, these provisions are not related to COVID-19 economic measures aiming to boost the Italian economy. They have been in the agenda for quite some time with the aim of promoting the Made in Italy and increase the value of Italian brands abroad. However, they can be considered as additional measures available to companies in such challenging times.

“I wanna really really really wanna… take you to court.” VB trade mark dispute heads to the Federal Circuit Court in Australia

May 04 2020

Fashion mogul and former Spice Girl, Victoria Beckham has lost the first round of a trade mark battle with Australian skincare brand, VB Skinlab, in relation to two of VB Skinlab’s pending Australian trade mark applications for the “VB” brand filed in March 2018. A full copy of the decision can be found here.

Court finds ‘flagrant’ copyright infringement of ‘Love is in the Air’

May 04 2020

In its recent judgment (Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535), the Federal Court of Australia has found that an American electronic musical duo copied the celebrated Australian disco song ‘Love Is In The Air’. The decision confirms that the sound of lyrics as sung forms part of a musical work. Furthermore, a short sung lyric with attending music can be the ‘essential air’ of a song.

While determining only “modest” levels of copyright infringement occurred and dismissing most claims for damages, Justice Perram described the copying as “flagrant” and indicated there will be a further hearing to assess damages.

Show me the money: Supreme Court rules that trademark infringers may disgorge profits even if the law was not willfully violated

May 04 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that brand owners are not required to prove willful intent before obtaining a defendant’s lost profits. On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding circuit split and unanimously held that trademark infringers may have to hand over their profits even if they did not willfully infringe.

In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the rule that a plaintiff can win a profit remedy only after showing a defendant willfully infringed its trademark can be reconciled with the statute’s plain language. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, Romag Fasteners (Romag), holding that:

“[a] plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award.”

After the CJEU’s decision now there is a final High Court judgment in the Sky v SkyKick case

Apr 29 2020

After the CJEU’s ruling earlier this year (as discussed here), the Sky v Skykick case has now returned to the English High Court and Lord Justice Arnold on 29 April 2020 issued a final judgment in the case (see full text of the judgment here).

Although Sky’s trade marks were found to be partially invalid on the ground that they were applied for in bad faith, Sky was still ultimately successful in establishing infringement.

COVID-19: USPTO further extends certain filing and payment deadlines to June 1, 2020 for those affected by COVID-19 outbreak

Apr 29 2020

In a Notice issued April 28, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) further extended certain filing and payment deadlines to June 1, 2020, provided that the filing is accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing or payment was due to the COVID-19 outbreak. This Notice supersedes the prior March 31, 2020 Notice that offered 30-day extensions to certain deadlines through April 30, 2020.

U.S. Supreme Court rules Georgia’s official annotated code outside the scope of copyright protection under “government edicts” doctrine

Apr 28 2020

On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts that copyright protection does not extend to the annotations in Georgia’s official annotated code. In the case, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (No. 18-1150), the majority held that because “Georgia’s annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection” even though the annotations themselves do not have the force of law.[1]

Author - admin