The High Court recently delivered its decision in Real Estate Tool Box v Campaigntrack 1 relating to copyright authorisation.
The High Court held that the appellants, who had engaged a third party software developer to create a real estate
NUMB: BOTOX reputation insufficient to stop PROTOX
Earlier this month, the High Court of Australia ultimately rejected trade mark infringement and misleading/deceptive conduct claims by Allergan (owner of the injectable BOTOX®) against Self Care’s anti-wrinkle skincare products PROTOX and INHIBOX (marketed under the slogan ‘instant Botox® alternative
Aristocrat Technologies: The Future Patentability of Gaming Technology and Computer-Implemented Inventions
Last month, the High Court dismissed an appeal by gaming technology provider Aristocrat Technologies over whether computerised components in their electronic gaming machines (EGMs) which triggered a “feature game” constituted patentable subject matter.
The judgment was split evenly
Clarity in advertising a must, says ACCC
On 12 December 2013 the High Court of Australia held TPG Internet Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when it ran certain advertisements between 2010 and 2011. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd
Brand owners continue to target parallel importers
A recent case brought by Electrolux in the Federal Court of Australia reflects the trend of brand owners targeting parallel imports of their goods into Australia. Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Delap Impex Ltd [2013] FCA 600.
The Federal
Can foreign word marks be inherently adapted to distinguish? The tale of two coffee houses
Cantarella Bros. Pty Ltd has imported raw coffee beans into Australia since 1958. Once imported, Cantarella roasts, grinds and packages the coffee under the trade mark Vittoria. Cantarella registered the words ORO and CINQUE STELLE as trade marks with