IP nous for crowdfunders

by

We’ve all heard the crowdfunding success stories from Pozible, Kickstarter and a plethora of other platforms. But with reward comes risk. Budding business owners must take steps to protect their IP before pushing the button on a crowd funding campaign.  Failure to do so may result in a loss of IP rights or worse, litigation. …
>> Read more

Alright for OZEMITE in the battle of the spreads

by

Despite taking more than a decade to put his OZEMITE product on supermarket shelves, entrepreneur Dick Smith has successfully defended his rights to his Australian trade mark. In 1999, the well-known Australian adventurer, philanthropist and businessman proposed a product, OZEMITE to rival Vegemite, an iconic yeast spread that was made in Australia, but owned at …
>> Read more

Full court decision potentially limits definition of ‘comprises’

by

The Full Court decision in Actavis Pty Ltd v Orion Corporation [2016] FCAFC 121 potentially limits the effectiveness of a definition of “comprises” in a specification. Claim 17 of the patent defined: A method for preparing an oral solid composition comprising entacapone, levodopa, and carbidopa, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or hydrate thereof, wherein the …
>> Read more

Changes to official fees at IP Australia

by

Following the signing of the Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Fee review) Regulation 2016 by the Governor-General on 17 August 2016, official fees for patents, trade marks, designs and plant breeder’s rights are changing. Most of these changes will take affect from 10 October 2016, although changes to fees paid through the International Bureau in relation …
>> Read more

Frucor fails in Green bid

by

Can a single colour be a brand? Generally, the Trade Marks Office and the Courts are reluctant to recognise claims made by a business that a specific colour is theirs alone. There are of course some famous exceptions. Kodak owns the colour gold as a trade mark for photographic film and Cadbury owns the colour …
>> Read more

Feathers fly in trade mark case: licensing lessons from Lodestar

In the recent case of Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America1, the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia ordered the removal of two trade marks from the register for non-use because the registered owner did not exercise actual practical control over the use of the trade marks by its licensee. Under the Australian Trade …
>> Read more

Inutility in the spotlight in Australia

Australian law requires that, in addition to being novel and inventive, a patentable invention must be ‘useful’. Utility is not only an issue considered during examination, but is also a ground for opposition of an Australian application, as well as for re-examination and revocation of a patent. The recent case of Ronneby Road v ESCO1 …
>> Read more