In an enforcement proceeding stemming from the ITC’s December 2015 decision in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-921, ALJ David
Businesses intending to sell products embodying a new design should consider registering that design with IP Australia, if they want to stop
The BC Supreme Court’s decision in Century 21 Limited Partnership v Rogers Communications Inc., 2011 BCSC 1196, sounds like a law-school mooting problem, given the number of issues it covers.
The internet is not a law-free zone where anything goes.
On April 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed to address the question of whether and under what circumstances there can be joint liability for patent infringement.
In the US, Japan and other countries, it is common practice for a rights holder to send cease and desist letters to a third party believed to be infringing its intellectual property rights.
The legal risks of open source software need not be any greater than the legal risks of proprietary software if you pay proper attention and take action.
In a copyright infringement suit involving a movie soundtrack, court holds (1) a nonexclusive license can be oral; (2) where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the license; (3) absent consideration, a nonexclusive license is revocable; and (4) by instituting a copyright infringement action, plaintiff revoked any license that may have existed between the parties.
In the landmark copyright case of IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 254 ALR 386 (IceTV case), the High Court unanimously held that IceTV did not infringe copyright by reproducing individual items of time and title information from Nine Network’s weekly television schedules.
The general public interest in ensuring that there is availability of certain signs for commercial use (that is a consideration for the assessment of registrability or revocation) is not relevant to considerations of the extent of protection afforded to a mark in terms of the likelihood of confusion (Article 5(1)(b) Trade Marks Directive (Directive); section 10(2) Trade Marks Act 1994 (Act)) or assessment of unfair advantage (Art.5(2) Directive; section 10(3) Act), nor could it be used as a defence in relation to the limitation of the effects of a trade mark under unless the sign used specifically related to the kind, quality or nature of the goods etc (Art. 6(1)(b) Directive; section 11(2) Act).