admin – Page 43 – IP Law Watch

After Nine Year Battle, Appeals Court Upholds US$540,000 Award to Sculptor for Use of Memorial Images on U.S. Postage Stamp

Mar 05 2015

A long litigation battle by sculptor Frank Gaylord against the U.S. government has resulted in the confirmation of an award of more than US$540,000. In 1990, Mr. Gaylord won a competition to work on a federal memorial to veterans of the Korean War (Memorial), which had been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Ultimately, the Memorial comprised 19 stainless steel statues, designed to represent a platoon of soldiers in formation on the ground. The Memorial was completed, installed, and opened to the public in Washington, DC, in 1995. Mr. Gaylord filed a number of copyright registrations, covering the various statues. Read More

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

How Much Attention Does the Average Consumer of Ice Cream pay to Packaging?

Feb 10 2015

Ruling of the European Union General Court

On 25 September 2014, the European Union General Court (EU General Court) handed down a ruling (case ref. T-474/12) in the case of an invalidation of the right to a three-dimensional Community trademark created by the form of two packaged ice cream cups.

Shape Trade Marks Which Solely Protect Function are not Registrable in Europe

Feb 05 2015

Ruling of the European Court of Justice

The companies Hauck and Stokke, known on the market for children’s accessories, were engaged in a dispute over high chairs. Hauck moved for the invalidation of a trademark registered by Stokke in the Benelux countries. The designation had the form of a high chair for children. The chair was traded on the market under the name Tripp-Trapp.

Social Media: 10 Fundamental Questions All Businesses Should Consider About Their Online Presence

Feb 02 2015

Twenty years ago, the social media world we now live in was the stuff of science fiction. Today, social media is a critical business tool creating unprecedented opportunities for direct consumer interaction, brand awareness, checking the pulse of key constituents and so much more. This incredible opportunity is not risk-free, however, and is the subject of new laws, application of old laws to new situations, and a significant amount of murkiness. Fortunately, the risks can be managed by considering the issues created by social media and that begins with asking the right questions. Please click here to view a discussion of ten important questions every business can start with to better benefit from its social media presence.

Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation

Jan 30 2015

The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not indefinite with respect to the phrase “molecular weight.” During trial, the District Court construed the phrase “molecular weight” by considering expert declarations from both parties relating to different ways to calculate a molecular weight, and how the specification supported or conflicted with each of the ways to calculate molecular weight. The District Court credited Teva’s expert declaration at the expense of Sandoz’s expert declaration.

To read the full alert, click here.

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

Continuation of the Dispute Between “SUPERGLUE” and “SUPER GLUE”: Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Jan 20 2015

A decision issued recently by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-91/14 P) (Court of Justice) concluded another stage in a dispute between Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław, Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. (PH Medox) and OHIM and Henkel Corp. (an intervening party). The dispute concerned the following graphic designation:

Author - admin