Famous well-known brands vigorously defend their brand from infringement. Famous brands are generally worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. However, has Apple Inc been overzealous in their efforts to stop a company with a ‘pear’ logo from operating? This case has not yet been resolved.
Two recent decisions of the IPONZ hearing office highlights how appealing to the Commissioner’s broad discretion can reverse a missed deadline for divisional filing where a genuine mistake has been made.
When Dr. Elizabeth Kirk, Beyond Ergo decided to rebrand her specialised ergonomic business, she consulted with Binh Rey for assistance with trademarking her new name. What she discovered was that her chosen name wasn’t an ideal representation of her business, and rebranding was more involved than simply choosing a new name.
Based on our investigation into the recent court and IP Australia decisions on patentability of four Aristocrat software innovation patents, we present three actionable steps in this article for patent attorneys and innovators to reduce subject matter objection risk for software patents from the outset. This article also gives an example of a certified software innovation patent without the subject matter objection raised during certification.
A recent decision by the delegate of the registrar of trade marks highlights the potential for confusion when businesses choose generic brand names. Choosing generic […]
Mike Biagio discusses the case of Vald Performance vs Kangatech, which demonstrates the outcome of a license that is not done properly and why you need an IP solictor’s advice in drafting exclusive licenses.
One Federal Court decision clarifies what is considered as “authorised use” of a trade mark wherein the trade mark user is not the trade mark owner but a subsidiary of the owner’s company.
![Learning from the Case The Sunraysia Natural Beverage Co Pty Ltd v Honest Tea Inc [2019] ATMO 74](https://www.baxterip.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sunraysia-vs-Honest-Tea-v3-300x200.jpg)
Registered trade marks that are not used in commerce may be removed due to non-use. This case shows how owners address allegations of non-use.
A CRISPR patent was revoked due to unsuccessful transfer of priority rights to Europe through PCT.
EN
