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

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 32

The folly of a press release

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 26 2014

Madden had falsely accused Seafolly of copying her designs. However, an unresolved part of that dispute concerned a series of misleading social media

Swimwear designer sees the folly of her ways

  • Baldwins
  • -
  • Australia, New Zealand
  • -
  • April 10 2014

The case of the swimwear designer Leah Madden and her legal battle with Seafolly over allegations of copying serves as a timely reminder that your

Misleading company and brand names ACCC v Kingisland Meatworks and Cellars Pty Ltd is your use of a place of origin in your company or brand name allowed?

  • Addisons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • November 28 2013

The ACCC v Kingsland Meatworks and Cellars Pty Ltd case involves interesting considerations about the use of a place of origin in a company or brand

IntellectualProperty trending on Twitter: considering IP in the age of the hashtag

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • November 19 2013

Social media has transformed the 'hash' symbol () from a mere symbol key into a phenomenon of its own. Yet the addition of the symbol before a

Google Inc v ACCC: More detailed analysis

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 6 2013

Further to our breaking news post this morning (we promised there was more to follow!), our Anthony McKew and John Swinson have prepared an alert on

BLG Monthly Update

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • December 19 2012

The BLG Monthly Update is a digest of recent developments in the law which Neil Guthrie, our National Director of Research, thinks you will find

JT International SA v Commonwealth 2012 HCA 43

  • Spruson & Ferguson
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • November 20 2012

On 5 October 2012, the High Court of Australia handed down written reasons, following orders made on 15 August 2012 in favour of the defendant in each of JT International SA v Commonwealth and British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v Commonwealth

I think we should break up

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 9 2011

When entering into licence agreements for TV and other media, few would forget to pay attention to the intellectual property rights of the parties

AFACT loses copyright appeal: full federal court finds iiNet did not authorise infringement

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 25 2011

In a landmark 2-1 decision (Jagot J dissenting) with three separate judgments, the Full Federal Court yesterday dismissed an appeal against last year's decision that found internet service provider iiNet was not liable for the infringement of copyright by its users

Hollywood v ISP - iiNet held not responsible for its customers’ copyright infringement

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • June 7 2010

On 4 February 2010, the Australian Federal Court dismissed a claim by a multi-national alliance of motion picture and recording industry companies, represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), that iiNet, Australia's third largest internet service provider, had authorised copyright infringement by failing to stop its customers from using the otherwise legitimate BitTorrent file sharing software system to download copyrighted movies