Court Decisions – Page 5

Henkel Cleans Out FINISH Trade Marks

Nov 08 2022

It’s all out in the wash: Henkel Australia Pty Ltd (Henkel) has successfully removed two dishwashing tablet trade marks owned by Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Reckitt) from the register.

In the recent Federal Court decision RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Henkel Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1042, Rofe J simultaneously overturned an interlocutory injunction against Henkel and declared that two trade marks for dishwashing tablets owned by Reckitt should be removed from the register for non-use.

Who Really Owns Your Business’s Trade Mark? Federal Court of Australia Confirms That a Trade Mark Can Be Registered in The Name of a Company’s Sole Director and Shareholder

Oct 28 2022

Ensuring trade marks are registered in the correct name is of critical importance, especially when registration of the trade mark is challenged.

This was amply demonstrated in the recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Watson as Trustee for the Watson Family Trust v Cosmetic Warriors Ltd [2022] FCA 700.

Can Dawgs Free-Ride on Bulls – Interpretation of Unfair Advantage for UK Trade Marks

Sep 19 2022

The UK High Court has rejected an appeal filed by Monster Energy to register its trade mark ‘RED DAWG’. The court deemed that it could take unfair advantage of the famous energy drink brand’s trade mark ‘RED BULL’. The case (Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch)) was initially held before the UKIPO before Monster Energy’s appeal to the High Court.

Swatch v Samsung: App Store Operators are Not Intermediaries and Can be Liable for Trade Mark Infringement

Aug 30 2022

The High Court of Justice of England & Wales has recently held Samsung liable for trade mark infringement for watch faces sold on the Samsung Galaxy App store (“Samsung’s Store”) and infringing Swatch Group’s trade mark rights. The judgement provides useful guidance on intermediary liability specifically regarding app store operators.

High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia

Aug 22 2022

The High Court has issued its eagerly awaited decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat). Six High Court Justices presided over the appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia (Full Court Decision), which we wrote about in November 2021. The High Court was split 3-3, meaning the appeal was dismissed and Aristocrat’s patent application will not proceed to grant.

The split decision leaves the question of the patentability of computer implemented inventions (CIIs) somewhat unresolved in Australia.

Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK

Jul 21 2022

Considering the UK’s rich history of literature, it may be somewhat surprising to know that there was very little case law discussing whether copyright might subsist in a fictional character. However, on 8 June 2022, the UK courts finally tackled whether a fictional character can be protected under copyright law in Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC).

Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages

Jul 12 2022

The rule against double recovery, which operates to ensure plaintiffs are not compensated twice in respect of the same loss, is well-known and generally arises for judicial consideration where there are joint and several tortfeasors. The recent decision of Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116 by Judge Long SC of the District Court of Queensland considered the rule against double recovery in the context of separate proceedings against different defendants. This case confirms that where damages for copyright infringement are compensatory, the fact that a plaintiff has already received an amount of damages from one infringer will serve to reduce the damages payable by the other.

Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under

Jun 07 2022

The issue of contributory infringement of a patent under the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) does not often arise for consideration by the Australian judicial system. When it does arise, the question of whether or not the product supplied is a ‘staple commercial product’ under the relevant provisions of the Act is always of particular interest.

In only a few cases has the impugned product been held to be a staple commercial product, and so any case that expands upon that product class is a particularly valuable aid. It is therefore of interest that the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has recently considered contributory infringement in Hood v Down Under Enterprises International Pty Limited [2022] FCAFC 69.

Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship

Apr 22 2022

In July 2021, Australia was thrust into the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions as a result of the Australian Federal Court’s decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 – see our previous coverage here.

At first instance, the Court construed “inventor” as including “a person or thing that invents”.¹ The decision was an appeal from a Patent Office hearing where the Office rejected a patent application in the name of Stephen L. Thaler as the creator of the “inventor”, AI system (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS)). As DABUS had autonomously generated the invention, for the purposes of the patent application Dr Thaler derived title to the invention from DABUS.

“Levitating” Lawsuits: Understanding Dua Lipa’s Copyright Infringement Troubles

Mar 21 2022

Even global stardom will not make copyright woes levitate away from British superstar Dua Lipa. The pop icon is making headlines following a week of back-to-back, bi-coastal lawsuits alleging copyright infringement with her hit “Levitating.” First, on Tuesday March 1st, members of reggae band Artikal Sound System sued Dua Lipa for copyright infringement in a Los Angeles federal district court¹. Then, on Friday March 4th, songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer filed their own copyright infringement lawsuit against the pop star in a New York federal district court². Both lawsuits were filed claiming violations of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.³

Tag:Court Decisions