Articles

Results 1 to 5 of 5


Judicial review: being candid about the duty of candour

United Kingdom - May 14 2013 A party to an application for judicial review has a duty to be candid with the Court and any other party. This article outlines just what is required…

Trade marks: reply evidence must be "strictly in reply"

New Zealand - March 11 2013 Regulation 85 of the Trade Mark Regulations 2003 provides that: An opponent to an application for registration may, if the applicant has filed…

Trade marks: a case of whisky?

New Zealand - February 1 2013 When I was in Scotland, my brother and I decided to drive up the Great Glen on our way to John O'Groats. The night before we left, we went for a…

MARMITE® v MA’AMITE: why did SANITARIUM® freak?

New Zealand, United Kingdom - December 20 2012 When I was working in London I used to spend some of my hard earned sterling in the New Zealand Shop that was then located on the ground floor of New Zealand House.

Chettleburgh v Seduce Group Australia: the need for clear pleading in IPONZ proceedings

New Zealand - December 19 2012 Over the years a practice has developed in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks (IPONZ proceedings) pursuant to which the pleadings have to a large extent contained merely a recitation of the particular sections of the Trade Marks Act 2002 relied upon, with no particularisation of the parties' respective cases.