Archives for: ‘Technology’

Productivity Commission recommends extensive changes to Australian IP – including fair use, circumventing geoblocks, abolishing business method and software patents and more!

Today, the Productivity Commission has released its draft report into Australia’s intellectual property arrangements. IP Whiteboard readers may recall that last year, the Federal Government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of Australia’s intellectual property system (see our previous post here). At 600 pages, the draft report is certainly comprehensive! We have published an alert summarising the …

Read More
Partner:

Can I use a competitor’s name or trade marks for Google AdWords?

This question is often asked by companies considering ways to funnel internet traffic to their own website by diverting internet users seeking to access a competitor’s website. A single judge of the Federal Court has found that the use of a competitor’s trade mark as a keyword in Google AdWords is neither trade mark infringement nor likely to mislead or …

Read More
Partner:

Aristocrat v Global Gaming – it’s all fun and games until someone infringes a trade mark

The Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC marks the end* of a long-running dispute between the Aristocrat Technologies group and Global Gaming Supplies, Impact Gaming and Tonia Enterprises. *hopefully The Aristocrat group and its trade marks The Aristocrat group supplies gaming technologies and services to the international gaming industry. …

Read More
Partner:

The fragrant but (un)safe harbour: what happened to Hong Kong’s Copyright amendment?

Hong Kong may be famed for its deep and sheltered harbour, but prolonged debate over amendments to the Copyright Ordinance have seen ‘safe harbours’ for internet providers sink. On 8 March 2016, an Editorial in the South China Morning Post mourned for Hong Kong’s amendment, Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014: With the legislature becoming increasingly hostile, the passage of government bills …

Read More
Partner:

Are search results defamatory? Google’s not feeling lucky

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but search results can hurt you? At least, that seems to be way the Australian courts have been leaning. In the latest in a series of cases against Google, Google was unsuccessful in its bid to set aside a writ and statement of claim alleging defamation by their search results. The person bringing …

Read More
Partner:

500 versions of software – when is a new version of software original and when does copyright subsist?

The Full Court, in its recent decision JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Limited v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20 tackled some difficult questions of subsistence of copyright and originality. Considering the circumstance where an original work has been altered by a number of changes that are insubstantial in the context of the foundation work, the Full Court asked: Is the text …

Read More
Partner:

Computer implemented business methods – routine patent cases for the Australian courts?

A Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia appeared to suggest that patent cases involving claimed inventions for computer implemented business methods can be determined using an established framework and such cases are no longer at the cutting edge of patentability – that mantle has been assumed by gene technology. The case in point is Commissioner of Patents v …

Read More

Google’s new branding – trade mark issues for giants

Well, what do you think? Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed. Looks pretty good to me. I particularly like the new G logo.                 It is interesting to consider the portfolio management issues the re-brand poses, in this case from an Australian perspective. Does Google’s fame help it or hinder it in terms of its trade mark portfolio? Is it …

Read More

Too early to pull the plug on innovation patents

In June 2014, following three years of public consultation, the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) released a report in which it made recommendations to reform the Innovation Patent System. ACIP did not, at that stage, recommend abolishing the system. Our previous post on ACIP’s recommendations can be found here. On 25 May 2015, IP Australia published a report entitled …

Read More
Partner:

Page 1 of 1612345»10...Last »