Photo of Frances Drummond (AU)

The decision of Bacardi & Company Limited v Dickinson Distribution Group Pty Ltd [2020] ATMO 117 (1 July 2020) confirms the acceptance of the similarity between goods in classes 32 and 33, and in particular accepts that gin is similar to beer. Hence, it is vitally important for owners of marks registered in classes 32 and 33 to monitor for any potentially infringing marks in the wider beverage market.

When times become tough, stressful and trying, many people react with humour.  As the world finds itself in the midst of a global medical virus, a different type of virus – a virtual virus – has taken off and continues to grow.  COVID-19.  A virus interchangeably referred to as Coronavirus. A virus which is familiar to almost all of humanity at the present time.  And a virus which has become the subject of many social media memes, jokes and other humorous online content.

But what happens when it is your business or personality that becomes the subject of such a “virtual virus”?

IP legislation often finds itself struggling to plug gaps in the law caused by the rapid pace of technological change, and the state of the law surrounding ownership of AI-generated products is no different. In the first article of this series, we considered how current Australian patent and copyright law frameworks would deal with questions of AI ownership for AI-generated IP.

Artificial Intelligence, or AI, refers to the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behaviour. Though it sounds like something out of a sci-fi film, the reality is that AI is quickly becoming a norm in our everyday lives, from the simple AI systems used to sort email inboxes, to complex AI systems known as “Generative Adversarial Networks” (GANs), which can be trained to autonomously produce new products without human input. This has resulted in a new type of intellectual property: AI-generated IP.