Tag:Australia

1
High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia
2
Single Patent Filing and Examination in Australia and New Zealand Almost a Reality
3
Australia’s Very Exclusive Patent Licensee Club
4
Now Trending: #jesuischarlie Trade Marks
5
Australian Government Reveals Plan to Crackdown on Online Piracy – but not too Hard!
6
Apple Denied App Store Trade Mark in Australia
7
High Court of Australia Decides Landmark Trade Mark Case
8
The Great Bottle Battle – Coke vs Pepsi
9
Safe and Sound
10
AUD50,000+ Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Their Employer’s Copyright Works and Confidential Information

High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia

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.

Read More

Single Patent Filing and Examination in Australia and New Zealand Almost a Reality

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

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

Now Trending: #jesuischarlie Trade Marks

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

Australian Government Reveals Plan to Crackdown on Online Piracy – but not too Hard!

The Australian Government announced last week that it will implement measures proposed by Attorney General, George Brandis, and the Australian Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, to reduce “high levels of online copyright infringement”.

The announcement is timely – given the owners of the film Dallas Buyers Club issue of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in November, against five internet service providers (ISPs) including iiNet, seeking orders to have the ISPs disclose the identities of alleged pirates. Read More

Apple Denied App Store Trade Mark in Australia

It has been a bumper week for IP decisions in Australia. Earlier, we reported on the Coke v Pepsi and Cantarella decisions. Now, in a third major judgment, the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) has refused registration of Apple’s trade mark application for APP STORE in Australia.

Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1304 was an appeal from a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks (Registrar). The Registrar found that the trade mark APP STORE was ‘purely’, ‘directly’ or ‘inherently’ descriptive, as it would be well understood by modern digital-savvy consumers to refer to a ‘store’ that sells or provides ‘apps’. Read More

High Court of Australia Decides Landmark Trade Mark Case

Decision in Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd Clarifies Test for Distinctiveness of Trade Marks in Australia

This week, the High Court of Australia (High Court) handed down only its third decision considering trade mark issues since the enactment of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). This decision could make it easier to register foreign language words as trade marks.

Read More

The Great Bottle Battle – Coke vs Pepsi

Coke Loses its Action Against Pepsi Based on its Iconic Contour Bottle

The Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc & Ors (No 2) [2014] FCA 1287

On 28 November 2014, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed claims of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off made by The Coca-Cola Company (Coke) against Pepsico Inc, Pepsico Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, and Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd, the manufacturer and distributor of Pepsico Inc products in Australia (collectively referred to as Pepsi). Read More

Safe and Sound

Sound Marks in Australia

In September, IP Australia accepted for registration a trade mark described as “the Trade Mark consists of the sound of a fictitious character saying the word “Simples!” followed by a squeaking sound such as might be expected to be made by a Meerkat or other small animal”. You can listen to this trade mark here.  This application was filed for an array of goods and services by the UK company BGL Group Limited. Read More

AUD50,000+ Reasons for Employees to Think Twice About Their Employer’s Copyright Works and Confidential Information

Employees often like to take a little with them when leaving employment, some might say as a ‘memento’, others might say as outright theft of the intellectual property of their employer.  In a recent decision, an ex employee was ordered to pay his former employer AUD50,000 in damages for copying over 60GB of data prior to leaving his job to work for a competitor.

Read More

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.