Australia – Page 11 – IP Law Watch

Sydney Fashion Law Breakfast – Thursday 15 October

Sep 23 2015

How close is too close? Trends, inspirations and courts – where is the line between paying homage and knocking off someone else’s design?

K&L Gates invites you to our Fashion Law Breakfast on Thursday 15 October to explore the ins and outs of copying in the fashion industry, including tips on how to avoid getting into hot water and the legal options available to designers who discover that their creations have been copied. A panel of fashion industry and legal experts will discuss the role of trends in creating designs and address the difference between being inspired and being liable for copying.

Australian High Court Rules Rosuvastatin Low Dose Patent Obvious

Sep 16 2015

In an eagerly awaited decision¹ the Australian High Court has upheld a decision of a five judge bench of the Full Federal Court that AstraZeneca’s patent relating to low dosages of rosuvastatin is invalid on the basis that the claims lack an inventive step.

Section 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Act) as it existed at the priority date of Astra Zeneca’s patent imposed a threshold requirement that in order to be considered for assessing inventive step a document must be “ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant” by a person skilled in the art.

Ali Baba Launches a New Platform to Fight Counterfeiters

Aug 26 2015

The online marketplace continues to generate a vast number of fresh opportunities for businesses, such as the opening up of global trade channels to manufacturers and retailers that were previously restricted to their own local market. However, these opportunities come with very real risks and traders are becoming increasingly concerned about the sale of counterfeit goods through eCommerce stores such as Ali Express and the sale of re-branded copied goods through B2B websites such as Tao Bao.

Is Australia’s Innovation Patent System on Borrowed Time?

Aug 19 2015

On 5 August 2015, the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) released a consultation paper seeking feedback from interested stakeholders on the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property’s (ACIP) recommendation that the Australian Government should abolish the innovation patent system.

Introduced in 2001 under the Howard Government, the innovation patent system is Australia’s second tier patent right having a shorter term,eight years, and a lower threshold of invention (i.e. an ‘innovative step’ as opposed to an ‘inventive step’ required for a standard patent).

Extension of Term for Australian Patents Relating to AbbVie’s Blockbuster Drug HUMIRA Denied

Aug 12 2015

In a recent decisionthe Australian Patent Office has rejected applications to extend the term of three patents related to the highly successful anti-inflammatory drug HUMIRA.

The patents are part of a family in which extensions of term had been granted in connection with earlier patents. These earlier extensions were based on the initial listing of HUMIRA on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Australian Court Orders Copy House to Undergo Significant Alterations: A Recent Decision on Copyright Infringement in Building Designs

Aug 11 2015

Earlier this week the Supreme Court of Queensland (Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Coles v Dormer & Ors, a copyright infringement case about home designs. The Court found that a house built in an exclusive Port Douglas estate was created by copying the design of another house built close by in the same estate, and ordered that the infringing house undergo significant alterations to change its appearance.

John and Edith Bredens were prospective buyers of a home in The Sands, which had been constructed by Port Douglas Builders in accordance with plans created by designer Gregory Skyring. The Bredens were not successful in purchasing the house, which was ultimately bought by Stephen Coles, who gave evidence that he was particularly taken with the unique style of the house.

Replica Furniture: A Call to Arms

Jul 30 2015

In a four-part series recently published in Habitus Living, we explore the issues faced by makers of original and authentic designs by the rise of the replica furniture industry in Australia.

The popularity of reality renovation shows has sparked interest and demand for designer furniture, homewares and lighting products. Consumers seeking such products at affordable prices have been serviced by businesses dedicated to the sale of replica furniture products that are manufactured cheaply overseas and widely available online.

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.

Tag:Australia