Tag:Court Decisions

1
New Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) Program Enhances Opportunities for U.S. Entities
2
U.S. Copyright Review Board Affirms Rejection of Copyright Registration for Work Created With AI Application
3
Aussie Burger Wars Continue: KFC v. HFC
4
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
5
Artificial Sweeter Decision Sours Halal Authority: Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 175
6
In Starch Contrast: Australian Patent Office Makes key Finding on use of Trade Marks in Patent Specifications
7
Batman Won Another (Trade Mark) Battle
8
Rules on Suspension of CNIPA Trademark Proceedings
9
U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Trump Too Small” Trademark Refusal
10
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol Foundation in Copyright Fair Use Dispute Over Prince Portrait

New Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) Program Enhances Opportunities for U.S. Entities

On November 13 2023, the Mexican PTO (“IMPI”) released guidelines for the Accelerated Patent Grant (“APG”) Agreement. This is a patent work-sharing arrangement allowing qualifying USPTO patent holders the option of expediting prosecution for a corresponding Mexican patent application. The USPTO has been partners with Mexico through the Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) since 2010. PPHs are bilateral agreements among participating nations allowing qualifying patent applicants from one patent office to request expedited prosecution in a participating office. PPH programs have successfully reduced examination time and costs for clients by allowing examiners in later examining offices to utilize the search results from the earlier examiner. While the USPTO has a PPH partnership with IMPI, the APG Program is a new program giving USPTO applicants another opportunity to expedite a counterpart application in Mexico.

Read More

U.S. Copyright Review Board Affirms Rejection of Copyright Registration for Work Created With AI Application

In a decision dated 11 December 2023, the Copyright Review Board of the United States Copyright Office affirmed the Office’s refusal to register an AI-generated artwork submitted by Ankit Sahni.

Read More

Aussie Burger Wars Continue: KFC v. HFC

In KFC THC V Ltd v. Grill’d IP Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 192, KFC THC V Ltd (KFC) brought an opposition against the registration of the trade mark “HFC” filed by Grill’d IP Pty Ltd (Grill’d). KFC is a global chain of fast food restaurants otherwise known as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Grill’d is an Australian chain of burger restaurants which markets its food as a healthier, fresher alternative to the major fast food chains. The trade mark “HFC,” standing for “Healthy Fried Chicken,” is used by Grill’d for the fried chicken options on its menu.

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

Batman Won Another (Trade Mark) Battle

Batman may be a superhero but it is the General Court who has come to the rescue following an invalidation action bought against DC Comics, a Warner Bros subsidiary, by Commerciale Italiana Srl, a wholesale retailer of costumes. In 2019, the Italian company applied for the invalidation of the well-known Batman logo (EUTM 000038158) for some of the goods in classes 25 and 28 (including clothing, footwear, and costumes), based on lack of distinctive character.

Read More

Rules on Suspension of CNIPA Trademark Proceedings

Recently the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) released Interpretation of Rules on Suspension of CNIPA Trademark Proceedings (“Suspension Rules”). The Suspension Rules provides clear guidance on the circumstances under which a CNIPA trademark proceeding shall be or may be suspended.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Trump Too Small” Trademark Refusal

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to register the trademark “Trump too small” violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol Foundation in Copyright Fair Use Dispute Over Prince Portrait

In a decision closely watched by the visual arts community and content creators alike, the U.S. Supreme Court held on May 19, 2023, that pop artist Andy Warhol’s orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince (“Orange Prince”), adapted from photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s original photograph of Prince, was not “fair use” under copyright law. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. _ (2023).

Read More

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