Archives for: ‘Natalie Hickey’
On 22 April 2009 the High Court delivered its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.
The Australian parody/satire fair dealing defence to copyright infringement was introduced in December 2006 (s 41A of the Copyright Act ). But does anyone really know what it covers? Humour is subjective, and there is a dearth of relevant case law in this country. Of course, the parody/satire defence doesn’t require a piece to be funny per se (although such a requirement could lead to interesting courtroom debates), and the nature of parody implies that the piece must at least be comedic in nature.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/exposed-home-brand-deception/2009/01/16/1231608986605.html), Coles is set to overhaul its home brands partly due to concerns that the Coles Tick is too similar to the Australian Heart Foundation Tick.
Three recent cases instituted by Review (an Australian clothing designer and retailer) against alleged infringers of its registered dress designs have shown how difficult it can be to deter would-be infringers. Although in each of the three cases (Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments  FCA 74; Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redbury Enterprise Pty Ltd  FCA 1588; and Read More
Have you seen Coca-Cola’s “Share the Summer” campaign? The billboard advertisements omit any reference to the name “Coke” or “Coca-Cola”. Instead, consumers are invited to recognise the brand from the red background and the slogan “Share the Summer” featured in curly white script (also see www.sharethesummer.com.au). Clearly Coke thinks this form of advertising works. It did something similar in 2007 with its “Enjoy Summer” advertising. In this respect, Coke is challenging the traditional wisdom that, in all advertising, ‘the name
Over recent years, some members of the Federal Court have been sceptical about advertising evidence. In Cadbury v Darrell Lea, Heerey J made it clear that expert marketing evidence could prove an expensive waste of time. In his view, judges were well placed to determine themselves the brand impact of different types of packaging and marketing. Heerey J was not alone in this view, although the Full Court did overturn his decision to exclude expert evidence from the case. Now, the “Monster” case shows that the debate continues, but is perhaps trending towards an accept
The duty of a trial judge to give adequate reasons was at the heart of a recent appeal before the Full Federal Court brought by Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd. Carlisle, who we are acting for, was sued by Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd (Porter Davis Homes) for allegedly infringing copyright in Barrett plans such as “the Seattle”. Barrett has sued several industry players for infringing copyright in the ‘al fresco quadrant’ component of this plan (an open plan area plus courtyard under a single roofline). Carlisle lost at first instance and appealed the decision.
Mallesons’ Melbourne Intellectual Property team recently acted for Telstra in its successful application to intervene in the High Court appeal between Channel 9 and Ice TV. As an articled clerk in the Intellectual Property team, I attended court (sitting in Canberra) and assisted with Telstra’s preparation (for all the fun and excitement that was had, click here and here.