We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Overturned on appeal: Full Federal Court protects reputation in the get-up of Bodum coffee plunger

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 28 2011

On 5 August 2011, the majority of the Full Federal Court (Greenwood and Tracey JJ with Buchanan J dissenting) held that Bodum had acquired a distinctive secondary reputation in the shape and features of its Chambord coffee plunger, and that by failing to properly distinguish its look-alike product from the original, DKSH had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off.

more related articles »

Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2012

"Where the technology involved is easily understandable, expert testimony is not required

more related articles »

Plunger wars: latest decision bodes well for Bodum

  • Clayton Utz
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 1 2011

Since the famous decision of the High Court of Australia in Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 in 1982, it has been commonly accepted that a rival trader can copy someone else’s product with impunity (unless the product is protected by statutory intellectual property rights, such as a registered design), provided that the look-alike product is marked with the rival trader’s brand

more related articles »

Knockoff or fair game?

  • Gilbert + Tobin
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • December 6 2011

Most attempts to rely on actions under the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act or Australian Consumer Law or the tort of passing off to prevent copying of product designs have been unsuccessful, at least where the knockoff products bore differentiating brands from the original.

more related articles »

A casebook example of evidentiary rulings that cause “wasteful litigation”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2012

Addressing evidentiary rulings from a lower court, the U. S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment finding of infringement and validity and remanded the case for a new trial on both issues.

more related articles »

Coffee-cat victory: Bodum Chambord wins appeal in Federal Court

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • August 8 2011

Mallesons Stephen Jaques has successfully acted for the Bodum Group on a landmark legal battle in the Full Federal Court of Australia regarding a copy of its iconic Bodum Chambord coffee plunger.

more related articles »

Industrial designs in the war between Apple and Samsung electronics

  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 15 2012

A recent decision of the United Kingdom High Court between Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics (“Samsung”) illustrates the importance of obtaining industrial design registrations.

more related articles »

Federal Circuit transforms test for design patent infringement by discarding distinct “point of novelty” requirement

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 26 2008

This week’s decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess, Inc., v. Swisa, Inc. alters the test and arguably eases the burden for proving infringement of United States design patents by discarding one part of a formerly two-part test.

more related articles »

Applying the Designs Act 2003: Multisteps in the right direction?

  • Freehills Patent Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 26 2013

The recent Multisteps Pty Limited v Source and Sell Pty Limited 2013 FCA 743 decision provides insight as to how the Federal Court of Australia

more related articles »

Applying the Designs Act 2003: multisteps in the right direction?

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 26 2013

The recent decision of Justice Yates in Multisteps Pty Limited v Source and Sell Pty Limited 2013 FCA 743 (Multisteps)1 provides further insight as

more related articles »

Design patentsthe ordinary observer test point is the sole test of design patent infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

In a decision addressing Gorham’s ordinary-observer test, the sole infringement test pursuant to Egyptian Goddess, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a jury verdict of design patent infringement for further proceedings where the jury was instructed to consider the ordinary observer test and point of novelty.

more related articles »

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 14 2012

On May 14, 2012, in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to U.S. Design Patents No. D593,087, No. D618,677, and No. D504,889, and U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which related to smartphones and tablet computers.

more related articles »