LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEEUNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SUBJECT GUIDE

SUMMER SESSION 2007-08

Course Description and Objectives 1Teacher 1Assessment 1March 2008 Examination 1Lecture Program 2Weekend Schools 1 and 2 3Texts and Materials 4Prescribed Topics and Course Outline 5Assignment 28Assignment Questions 28

LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE SUMMER 2007-0822 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

The law of intellectual property includes the areas of copyright, design, patents, confidential information, business reputation and trade marks. The course provides a general introduction to intellectual property outlining for each principal category of protection, how the rights arise, the nature of the rights, ownership and exploitation as well as infringement and remedies.

Throughout the course key policy issues are considered including the rationale and role of intellectual property law, the overlap between areas of protection, the growing importance of Australia’s obligations under international treaties and the interaction of intellectual property law with other areas such as trade practices law.

TEACHER

Mr Andrew Fox, BA, LLB (Hons), LLM (Syd)

Mr Fox is a barrister at the NSW Bar and specialises in intellectual property and commercial litigation. He was previously a Partner at the intellectual property firm Griffith Hack. He is a graduate of the University of Sydney, holding Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws (Hons 1) and Master of Laws degrees. Mr Fox has also lectured in Contract Law and Litigation at the University of Sydney.

ASSESSMENT

To be eligible to sit for the Board’s examinations, all students must complete the LEC teaching and learning program, the first step of which is to ensure that you have registered online with the LEC in each subject for which you have enrolled with the Board. This gives you access to the full range of learning resources offered by the LEC.

Then, students must achieve a satisfactory result (at least 50%) in each subject where a compulsory component is prescribed.

To register with the LEC, go to www.usyd.edu.au/lec and click on the WEBCAMPUS link and follow the instructions. Detailed guides to the Webcampus are contained in the material distributed by the LEC, in the Course Information Handbook, and on the Webcampus.

MARCH 2008 EXAMINATION

Candidates will be expected to have a detailed knowledge of the six (6) principal types of intellectual property studied in the course, namely: Copyright, Industrial Designs, Patents, Confidential Information, Business Reputation (Passing Off and related statutory actions) and Trade Marks. Candidates will be assessed on the requirements for obtaining each of these intellectual property rights, how infringement of such rights is determined, and the remedies available in the event infringement is established. Candidates will also be expected to have an appreciation for the interaction between the six (6) principal types of intellectual property studied in the course.

All enquiries in relation to the examination should be directed to the Legal Profession Admission Board.

1

LECTURE PROGRAM

Lectures will be held on Monday nights commencing at 6.00pm in Law School Lecture Theatre 2 (LSLT 2), at the Sydney University Law School, which is on the corner of Phillip, King and Elizabeth Streets. There will be no lecture on Monday 28 January 2008, the Australia Day public holiday. Please note that the program below is a general guide and may be varied according to need.

WEEK TOPIC1

12 NovIntroduction to Intellectual Property;Copyright

219 Nov

Copyright

326 Nov

Copyright

43 Dec

Industrial Designs

510 Dec

Industrial DesignsCopyright/Design Overlap

617 Dec

Patents

Study Break Saturday 22 December 2007 – Sunday 13 January 2008

714 Jan

Patents

821 Jan

Confidential Information

928 Jan

No Lecture – Australia Day Public Holiday

104 Feb

Business Reputation

1111 Feb

Trade Marks

1218 Feb

Trade Marks

1325 Feb

Revision

2

WEEKEND SCHOOLS 1 AND 2

There are two weekend schools principally for external students. Lecture students may attend but should be aware that weekend school classes aim to cover the same material provided in weekly lectures and are primarily for the assistance of external students.

It may not be possible to cover the entire course at the weekend schools. These programs are a general guide, and may be varied according to need. Readings are suggested to introduce you to the material to be covered in the lecture, to enhance your understanding of the topic, and to encourage further reading. You should not rely on them alone.

Weekend School 1

TIME MAJOR TOPICS KEY READINGSaturday 1 December 2007 – in Eastern Avenue Seminar Room 312 (EASR 312)

4.10pm-5.20pm Introduction to Intellectual PropertyCopyright

See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"

5.30pm-6.35pm Copyright

6.45pm-8.00pm Copyright

Sunday 2 December 2007 – in Eastern Avenue Seminar Room 312 (EASR 312)

4.10pm-5.20pm Industrial Designs

See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"

5.30pm-6.35pm Industrial Designs

6.45pm-8.00pm Copyright/Design Overlap

Weekend School 2

TIME MAJOR TOPICS KEY READINGSaturday 2 February 2008 – in Carslaw Tutorial Room 357 (CTR 357)

4.10pm-5.20pm Patents

See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"

5.30pm-6.35pm Patents

6.45pm-8.00pm Confidential Information

Sunday 3 February 2008 – in Carslaw Tutorial Room 357 (CTR 357)

4.10pm-5.20pm Business Reputation

See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"

5.30pm-6.35pm Business Reputation/Trade Marks

6.45pm-8.00pm Trade Marks

3

TEXTS AND MATERIALS

Course Materials

Supplementary Materials in Intellectual Property (available via the link to the Law Library on the Course Materials section of the LEC Webcampus)

Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments (available on the LEC Webcampus)

Prescribed Materials

Butterworths Intellectual Property Collection 2007, LexisNexis Butterworths.

And either of the following books:

McKeough, Stewart & Griffith, Intellectual Property in Australia, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004 (“MSG 2004”). Students should note that this book contains commentary only, no case extracts.

Ricketson and Richardson, Intellectual Property: Cases Materials and Commentary, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005 (“RR 2005”).

Reference Materials

Students should be aware that books set out below which are more than 2-3 years old are likely to contain material which is out of date.

Australian current texts

McKeough, Bowrey, & Griffith, Intellectual Property: Commentary & Materials, 4th ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2007 (“MBG 2007”). This is the case book that accompanies MSG 2004.

Reynolds and Stoianoff, Intellectual Property: Text and Essential Cases, 2nd ed. Federation Press, 2005 (“RS 2005”).

Van Caenegem, Intellectual Property, LexisNexis Butterworths Tutorial Series, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2nd ed. 2006.

Other useful Australian texts

Ricketson, The Law of Intellectual Property, Thomson Lawbook, 1999.

Shanahan, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, 3rd ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2003.

Phillips, Protecting Designs Law and Litigation, Thomson Lawbook, 1994.

Elkington, Hall & Kell, Trade Mark Law in Australia, LexisNexis Butterworths, 1999

United Kingdom texts

Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 4th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000.

Skone James, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 13th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000, Supplement 2002.

Loose leaf services

CCH, Australian Industrial and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs, Patents, Trade Marks, Legislation and Cases

Lahore, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis Butterworths Garnsey, Dwyer, Duffy and Covell, Intellectual Property in Australia: Patents and Trade Marks,

LexisNexis Butterworths

4

Periodicals

Australian Copyright Council Bulletin Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin Australian Intellectual Property Law Journal Copyright Reporter Intellectual Property Forum

PRESCRIBED TOPICS AND COURSE OUTLINE

Many cases listed are relevant for more than one topic area. Most cases are reported in both the Intellectual Property Reports (IPR) and the Australian Intellectual Property Cases (AIPC).

An asterisk (“*”) in front of a case denotes that the case is recommended reading for this course. Where possible, the location of case extracts in the text books are identified next to the case reference.

1. INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Reading from Prescribed Materials

MSG 2004 at 1-14. RR 2005 at 5-9.

(1) What is intellectual property?

Definitions International aspects of intellectual property protection Relevant Australian statutes

2. COPYRIGHT

Relevant chapters for Topic 2 in Prescribed Materials

MSG 2004: Ch 5, 6, 7 and 8. RR 2005: Ch 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

(1) What is copyright? (i) Definitions of copyright

(ii) Copyright as property – s196 Copyright Act (“CA”)

Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154 (MBG 2007 at 32)

(iii) Fundamental distinction – ‘form of expression’ vs ‘ideas and information’

Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106 (MBG 2007 at 45)

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479

Autodesk v Dyason (No 1) (1992) 66 ALJR 233

(2) Origin and Rationale of Copyright

A. History Statute of Anne 1709

5

Donaldson v Beckett (1774) 98 ER 257

B. Moral and economic justifications

(3) The subsistence of copyright

The 4 requirements for copyright protection:

(i) Authorship - created by a ‘qualified person’ – ss32(4), 84, 184 CA (RR 2005 at 99).

(ii) Subject matter – ‘works’ and ‘subject matter other than works’ – ss10, 32, 89-92 CA (RR 2005 at 99).

(iii) Material form – ss10, 22 CA (RR 2005 at 98-99).

Nine Network Australia v Australian Broadcasting Corp (2000) 48 IPR 335 * Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503 (MBG 2007 at 54)

(iv) Originality – s32 CA (RR 2005 at 103).

* University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 (MBG 2007 at 62)

Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213

Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991) * Telstra Corporation v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd (2001) 51 IPR 257

(Full Fed Ct; HC Special Leave Application refused on 20/06/03) (RR 2005 at 104-146)

Nine Network Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1172 (9 August 2007)

(4) Works

4 types of ‘works’ under Part III CA.

(a) Literary

(i) Types of literary works (RR at 104).

(ii) General principles

*University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 607

(iii) Short and insubstantial literary works

*Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] RPC 69 (RS 2005 at 81-82)Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Limited [1964] 1 WLR 273 (RS 2005 at 76-

77)Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Ltd [1940] AC 112

6

(iv) Computer programs

Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171 (RR 2005 at 326-327)

* Autodesk v Dyason (1991) 22 IPR 163 (RR 2005 at 328-329)

* Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 353 (MBG 2007 at 76)

(b) Dramatic * Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand (1988) 16 IPR 1 (RR 2005 at 177)

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2000) 48 IPR 335

* Telstra Corporation Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Ltd (2003) 57 IPR 453

* Zeccola v Universal City Studios (1982) 46 ALR 189 (RS 2005 at 153-154)

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53 at 63-67

Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR

(c) Musical

CBS Records Australia Ltd v Gross (1989) 15 IPR 385 (RR 2005 at 179-180).

(d) Artistic(i) Definition: s10(1) CA.

(ii) Paintings

* Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32 (RR 2005 at 183-184)

Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd v Melbourne Chinese Press Pty Ltd (2003) 58 IPR 1 (RR 2005 at 184-185)

Cummins v Vella [2002] FCAFC 218 (Full Court unreported 16/07/2002)

(iii) Sculptures

* Lincoln Industries Ltd v Wham-O Manufacturing Co (1984) 3 IPR 115 (RR 2005 at 185-187)

* Greenfield Products v Rover-Scott Bonnar (1990) 17 IPR 417 (RS 2005 at 88-90; RR 2005 at 187-188)

(iv) Drawings

* Interlego AG v Croner Trading (1992) 111 ALR 577 (RS 2005 at 79-81; RR 2005 at 189-192)

LED Builders v Eagle Homes (1999) 44 IPR 24

Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 309

Tamawood Limited v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 (31 March 2004)

(v) Engravings (RR 2005 at 194-195)

(vi) Photographs (RR 2005 at 195-197)

(vii) Buildings and models of buildings (RR 2005 at 197-202)

(viii) Works of artistic craftsmanship

Cuisenaire v Reed (1963) VR 719 (RR 2005 at 204-207)

Muscat v Le (2004) 60 IPR 276 (RR 2005 at 207-210)

Merlet v Mothercare plc (1984) 2 IPR 456 (RR 2005 at 210)

George Henscher v Restawhile Upholstery (Lanes) Limited (1975) RPC 31 (RR 2005 at 210)

7

* Coogi Australia Pty Limited v Hysport International Pty Limited (1998) 41 IPR 593 (RS 2005 at 90-96; RR 2005 at 211-212)

Sheldon v Metrokane (2004) AIPC 91-972 (RR 2005 at 212)

*Burge v Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17; (2007) 234 ALR 204.

(5) Subject Matter other than Works

(a) Cinematograph films

Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Limited v Pacific Gaming Pty Limited (2001) 50 IPR 29

Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 462

Sega Enterprises Ltd v Gottlieb Electronics Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 161 (RR 2005 at 223-229)

(b) Sound and Television Broadcasts

* Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 59 IPR 1 (RR 2005 at 233-240), see also at [68], [100]-[102] and [142].

(c) Published editions of works

Protection for the skill and labour in presenting material in an edition (ie. the layout as distinct from the words used in the story). Applies to newspaper stories, magazines and the like.

* Nationwide News Pty Limited v Copyright Agency Limited (1996) 134 IPR 53 (RR 2005 at 241-242)

(d) Sound recordings

CBS Records Australia Limited v Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Limited (1987) 9 IPR 440

(e) Performers’ protection

RR 2005 at 243-244

(6) Ownership

RR 2005 at 473-486

(a) Works – owner is ‘author’

ss10(1) ”work of joint authorship”, 35(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6) CA

Co-ownershipCommissioned worksJournalists’ copyrightEmployee authors

Community ownership: Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 157 ALR 193 (MBG 2007 at 155)

(b) Subject matter other than works – owner is ‘maker’

s22 CA

(c) Duration

See RR 2005 at 250-251

(7) Exclusive Rights

8

(a) Works

s31 CA

(b) Subject matter other than works

Cinematograph films – s86 CATelevision and sound broadcasts – s87 CAPublished editions of works – s88 CASound recordings – s85 CA

(c) Performers

ss248G and 248J CA

(8) Assignment and licensing

(a) Assignment

ss196(1), 197 CAAustralian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53

(b) Licensing 196(2), 197

ss196(2), 197 CA

(i) exclusive licence (s119)

(ii) implied licence

NG v Clyde Securities [1976] 1 NSWLR 443

Beck v Montana (1963) 80 WN NSW 1578

Torpey Vander Have Pty Ltd v Mass Constructions Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 542

(c) Statutory licences

RR 2005 at 447-451MSG 2004 at 206-210

(d) Collecting societies

MSG 2004 at 206-210

(9) Infringement - introduction

(a) Direct and indirect infringement

(10) Direct infringement of works

(a) Substantiality (s14 CA)

9

(i) works

* Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Films Services [1934] 1 Ch 593 (RR 2005 at 260-262)

Ladbroke (Football) v William Hill [1964] I All ER 465; 1 WLR 273 (RR 2005 at 262)

Autodesk v Dyason [2002] FCA 1206 (RR 2005 at 262)

Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited (1999) 45 IPR 353 (RR 2005 at 264-268)

Walt Disney v HJ Edwards Publishing (1954) 71 WN (NSW) 150

(ii) other subject matter

Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 59 IPR 1 (RR 2005 at 268)

(b) Need for a causal connection

*Corelli v Gray (1913) 29 TLR 570 (RR 2005 at 276-277)

*Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 (MBG 2007 at 211; RR 2005 at 277-283)

(c) Need for resemblance or objective similarity

(i) General

* Kenrick v Lawrence (1890) 25 QB 99 (RR 2005 at 285-287)

(ii) Particular example: Literary and dramatic works: plots and characters

* Universal City Studios Inc v Zeccola [1982] AIPC 90-019 (RR 2005 at 287-292)

(d) Case study : Infringement of one exclusive right - ‘the right of public performance’

*APRA v Tolbush (1985) 7 IPR 160 (RR 2005 at 364-366)

*Rank Films v Dodds (1983) 2 IPR 113 (RR 2005 at 366-370)

*APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157

(11) Direct infringement of subject matter other than works

RR 2005 at 383-389

(12) Authorisation of infringement of copyright in works and other subject matter

ss36(1) and 101(1) CA

(i) General

* UNSW v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1

APRA v Jain (1990) 18 IPR 663 (RR 2005 at 390-395)

Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Metro on George [2004] FCA 1123 (31 August 2004) per Bennett J

10

(ii) Peer to peer networks

* Universal Music v Cooper [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006) (MBG 2007 at 250) – s.112E does not preclude an infringement finding on the authorisation ground under s.36 or s.101.

* Sharman Networks Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1 (appeal to Full Federal Court was heard in February 2006, decision pending but unlikely due to settlement) (MBG 2007 at 258)

A&M Records v Napster Inc 239 F3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001) 50 IPR 232 (US case)

MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd (US Supreme Court, 27 June 2005)

(13) Indirect infringement

Importation and commercial dealings with infringing copies:

ss37 and 38 CA (works)

ss102 and 103 CA (other subject matter)

Computermate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ozi-Soft Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 487 (RR 2005 at 399-402)

Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation (1992) 23 IPR 377 (RR 2005 at 402-403)

(14) Defences

(a) Exceptions and limitations on protection in general

* RR 2005 at 420-424

(b) Fair dealing: ss40, 41, 41A and 42

* De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Limited (1990) 18 IPR 292 (RS 2005 at 424-429)* TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten 50 IPR 335 (trial – Hely J); (2002) 55 IPR 112 (Full Court) (RS 2005 at 429-436)s41A – the new ‘parody or satire’ defence

(c) Other defences

RR 2005 at 439-446

(d) Other protection available to copyright owners

Technological protection measures – Part 5, Div 2A (ss116AK-116D)Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005) HC 58 (6 October 2005)

(15) Remedies

RR 2005 at 452-462

(a) Remedies in general

(b) Damages under s115 CA

(i) Compensatory damages – s115(2)

* Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69 (RR 2005 at 453-455)

11

Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301Aristocrat Technologies Australia v DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 40 (29 March 2007)

(ii) Additional damages – s115(4)

* Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69 (RR 2005 at 455-457)APRA v Pashalides 2000 (2000) 48 IPR 610* Zero Tolerance Entertainment Inc v Venus Adult Shops Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 155.

(c) Offences – Part V, Div 5 CA

(16) Moral Rights – Part IX CA

Reading:

MSG 2004 at 141-146 RR 2005 at 409-418

Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (14 August 2006)

3. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS

Required reading

MSG 2004: ch 10 RR 2005: ch 9

Special Note: Students should be aware that the Designs Act 1906 (Cth) was replaced by the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) which commenced on 17 June 2004. Our focus on this course is on the 2003 Act. Students are not expected to be aware of the provisions of the 1906 Act.

(1) Requirements for registration

(a) Meaning of ‘design’ Definition of ‘design’ – s5 Designs Act 2003 (“DA”)

‘product’ – s6 DA

‘visual features’ – s7 DA

‘overall appearance of the product’ – see s5 DA

* Re Wolanski’s Registered Design (1953) 88 CLR 278 (RR 2005 at 534)

(b) Novelty and distinctiveness

Threshold statement under s15 DA

‘prior art base’ – s15(2) DA

(i) prior public use of the design

(ii) prior publication in a document

* J Rapee & Co Pty Ltd v Kas Cushions Pty Ltd (1990) 15 IPR 577 (RR 2005 at 544)

(iii) disclosure in an earlier design application

‘new and distinctive’ – ss16-19 DA

(i) ‘New’ – compared to prior art base – s16(1) DA

12

(ii) ‘Distinctive’ – substantially similar in overall impression – s16(2) and s19 DA

(iii) Certain things to be disregarded – s17 DA

(iv) Earlier use or publication of design as an artistic work – s18 DA

Designs excluded from registration – s43 DA and Reg 4.06 of Designs Regulations 2004 (RR 2005 at 558-559)

(2) Outline of process of registration

RR 2005 at 559-568

(3) Ownership

Who is entitled to seek registration – s13 DA

Ownership of registered design – s14 DA

Exclusive rights of registered owners – s10 DA

Assignment of interest in design – s11 DA

Term of registration – s46 DA

(4) Infringement Who may bring proceedings – s73(1) DA

When may proceedings be brought – s73(3) DA

Where may proceedings be commenced – s73(2) DA

Infringement by doing any exclusive rights of registered owners – s71 DA

Extends to designs ‘substantially similar in overall impression’ – s19 DA

Will it be easier for a Court to apply the new Act test compared to old Act test (fraudulent or obvious imitation)?

Counterclaim for rectification of Register – s74 DA

(5) Spare parts defence – s72

(6) Remedies Remedies under s75(1) DA

Defendant’s innocence and reasonable care – s75(2) DA

Additional damages – s75(3) DA

Importance of packaging – s75(4) DA

Relief from unjustified threats – ss77-81 DA

(7) Issue of dual protection - Copyright/design overlap

Recommended reading:

RR 2005 at 577-592

Relevant provisions: ss 74-77 Copyright Act (1968) (“CA”)

The overlap problem – what is it?

Definition of corresponding design – s74 CA

13

Copyright protection where corresponding design registered – s75 CA

Artistic works applied as unregistered industrial designs – s77 CA

(i) copyright subsists in an artistic work

(ii) corresponding design has been applied industrially

* Reg 17 of Copyright Regulations 1969

* Safe Sport Australia Pty Ltd v Puma Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 IPR 120 (RR 2005 at 556)

*Press-Form Pty Ltd v Henderson’s Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 113 (RR 2005 at 556)

(iii) products are sold, let for hire

(iv) corresponding design has not been registered under Designs Act

‘Works of artistic craftsmanship’ not included, but no statutory definition

Sheldon v Metrokane (2004) 61 IPR 1

Certain reproductions of artistic works do not infringe copyright – s77A CA

Some recent case law on copyright/design overlap:

Shacklady v Atkins (1994) 30 IPR 387

Muscat v Le (2003) 60 IPR 276

*Norm Engineering v Digga Australia [2007] FCA 761.

4. CIRCUIT LAYOUTS ACT 1989

This topic will only be addressed if time permits. Topic 4 will not be assessed in the exam at the end of semester.

Reading:

RR 2005 ch 10

Circuit Layouts Act (Cth) 1989

Avel v Wells (1992) 36 FCR 340

Nintendo Co v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134

5. PATENTS

Required reading

MSG 2004: ch 11-14 RR 2005: ch 12-15

(1) Origins and background

The early period: before 1850 (RR 2005 at 652-658)

The establishment of the modern system (RR 2005 at 658-661)

Rationale and objects of the patent system (RR 2005 at 662-672)

14

(2) Requirements for patentability

(a) The Requirements under s18

Types of patents: standard and innovation

s18 defines what is a ‘patentable invention’

(i) manner of manufacture

(ii) novelty

(iii) inventive step

(iv) useful

(v) not secretly used

Threshold in inventiveness

RR 2005 720-725; MSG 2004 at 338-341

NV Phillips Gloeilamopenfabrieken v Mirabella International (1995) 183 CLR 655

Advanced Building Systems v Ramset Fasteners (1998) 194 CLR 171

Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21 at [106]; 235 ALR 202.

(b) Manner of manufacture

(i) What is a ‘manner of manufacture’?

Rogers v Commissioner of Patents (1910) 10 CLR 701 (RR 2005 680-683)

* National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 (RR 2005 at 683-689; MBG 2007 at 331, 338, 340)

(ii) Human treatment exception

The concept of ‘generally inconvenient’

Cases discussing human treatments

* Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611

* Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare (1994) 50 FCR 1

* Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding (2000) 46 IPR 553 (RR 2005 at 690-693)

(iii) Computer software

* International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218

* CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260 (MBG 2007 at 364)

(iv) Business methods, schemes, systems

Rolls-Royce Ltd’s Application [1963] RPC 251 (RR 2005 at 697-699)

* Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 51 IPR 327 (RR 20065 699-702; MBG 2007 at 363)

* Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) FCAFC 120

Peter Szabo & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] APO 24 (5 May 2005)

(v) Living organisms and developments in biotechnology

15

RR 2005 at 706-719

(c) Novelty

(i) Relevant statutory provisions

s7(1) Patents Act (Cth) 1990 (“PA”)

Dictionary definitions of: prior art information, prior art base, document, patent area

(ii) Quantum of disclosure: anticipation

General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co [1972] RPC 457; (1971) 1A IPR 121

* Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 171 (trial judge’s (Hill J) discussion on anticipation – RR 2005 at 735-740)

* Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering (1990) 16 IPR 545 (RR 2005 at 740-742; MBG 2007 at 387)

* MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son [1998] 1466 FCA; (1998) 43 IPR 287 (Sundberg J’s propositions on anticipation: RR 2005 at 743-744; MBG 2007 at 389)

(iii) Made publicly available

* Sunbeam Corp v Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd (1961) 35 ALJR 212 at 218 (RR 2005 at 744-745)

Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 12 ALJR 169 (RR 2005 745; discussed in MBG 2007 at 387)

Fomento v Mentmore [1956] RPC 87

(iv) Certain kinds of prior use/publication to be disregarded

s24 PA and reg 2.2 of Patent Regulations 1991

Showing, use or publication at a recognised exhibition

Publication in a paper read before a learned society

Ralph M Parsons Co (Beavon’s Application) [1978] FSR 226 (RR 2005 at 747)

Working of the invention in public for purpose of reasonable trial

Longworth v Emerton (1951) 83 CLR 539 (RR 2005 at 748)

Non-consensual disclosure

The new ‘grace period’ introduced from 1 April 2002

(d) Inventive step

(i) Relevant statutory provisions

ss7(2), (3) Patents Act (Cth) 1990 (“PA”)

Dictionary definitions of: prior art base, prior art information, patent area

(ii) How is ‘inventive step’ assessed? When is an invention obvious?

* APO Manual of Practice and Procedure, Vol 2 at 4.1.4-4.1.5 (MBG 2007 at 415)

* Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1303; (2000) 51 IPR 375; Appeal allowed by HC in [2002] HCA 59 (12/12/02) (RR 2005 at 754-770)

16

Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286 (RR 2005 at 763)

Relevance of hindsight considerations: see Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21 at [106]; 235 ALR 202.

(iii) Common general knowledge: the relevant prior art knowledge base

* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980) 144 CLR 253 (RR 2005 at 777-778)

* ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp Inc [1999] FCA 345

(iv) ‘CGK + 1’: the operation of s7(3) PA

Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited (2002) 54 IPR 449 (RR 2005 at 781)

*Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21; 235 ALR 202.

(e) Useful/Utility

* Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289 (RR 2005 at 782-788)

(f) Secret use

* Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 75 (Full Fed Ct) (RR 2005 at 790-791)

(g) Internal objections: insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing

Insufficiency of description

Samuel Taylor v SA Brush Co (1950) 83 CLR 616 (RR 2005 at 792-793)

Ambiguity of claims

Fair basing

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58 (RR 2005 at 800-807)

(h) Other grounds of invalidity s138 PA

(3) The application process and the role of patent attorneys

The role of the patent attorney: ss200, 201 PA (RR 2005 at 809-810)

The application process (RR 2005 at 810-819)

(4) Ownership and exploitation of rights Who may be granted a patent – s15 PA

Exclusive ‘exploitation’ rights of patent owner – s13 PA

Assignment of interest in patent – s14 PA

Term of grant – s67 (standard patent), s68 (innovation patent)

17

(5) Infringement

(a) Relevant statutory provisions Who may bring proceedings – ss120(2), (3) PA

When may proceedings be brought – s120(4) PA

Where may proceedings be commenced – s120(1) PA

Counterclaim for revocation of patent – s121 PA

Infringement by doing any of the patentee ‘exploitation’ rights – s13 PA, Dictionary definition of ‘exploit'

(b) How is infringement determined?

Construction of patent claims – approaches to construction (literal, purposive, pith and marrow)

* Clark v Adie (1877) 2 App Cas 315

* Van Der Lely v Bamfords [1963] RPC 61; (1962) 1A IPR 86

Rodi and Weinenberger v Henry Showell [1969] RPC 367

* Catnic Components v Hill and Smith [1982] RPC 183; [1978] FSR 405 (MBG 2007 at 485)

(c) Contributory infringement – s117 PARescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co (2000) 46 IPR 553 (Full Fed Ct) (RR 2005 at 835-840)

(d) Defences to infringement – s118, s119 PAMerck KGAA v Integra Life Sciences Limited (June 2005) US Supreme Court (defence to patent infringement in US: research exemption)

(6) Remedies Remedies under s122 PA

Innocent infringement – s123(1) PA

Importance of packaging – s123(2) PA

Relief from unjustified threats – s128 PA

(7) Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994

This topic will only be addressed if time permits. This part of Topic 5 will not be assessed in the exam.

RR 2005 at 874-876

Sun World Inc v Registrar of Plant Variety Rights (1997) 75 FCR 528

Grain Pool of WA v Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 475; 46 IPR 515

18

6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Reading from Prescribed Materials:

MSG 2004: ch 3, 4 RR 2005: ch 11

(1) Background to breach of confidence action

Protection of ideas and information

Jurisdictional basis for breach of confidence action

(2) Equitable action for breach of confidence

(a) Origins and elements of the equitable action Origins

Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 47 ER 1302 (RR 2005 at 619-621)

Elements of the modern action

(i) Information must not been in public domain

(ii) Information must be provided in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence

(iii) Breach of confidence

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No.2) (1984) 156 CLR 414 (RR 2005 at 623)

* Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) 65 RPC 203 (RR 2005 at 624-626)

* Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) [1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587 (RR 2005 at 626-628; MBG 2007 at 552)

Seager v Copydex [1967] 2 All ER 415 (MBG 2007 at 579)

Scope of the obligation

* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291 (MBG 2007 at 574; RR 2005 at 637-638)

The position of third parties

* Wheatley v Bell [1982] 2 NSWLR 544

Some other case examples

Falconer v Australian Broadcasting Corp [1992] 1 VR 662 (MBG 2007 at 565)

Franklin v Giddins [1978] Qd R 72; 1B IPR 807

Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004)

(b) Defences – the iniquity rule and public interest defence

The iniquity rule

Gartside v Outram (1856) 26 LJ Ch 113

19

Castrol Australia v Emtech Associates (1980) 51 FLR 184 (MBG 2007 at 583)

Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Coll of Customs for Vic (1987) 14 FCR 434

Public interest defence: balancing competing public interests

Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417 (MSG 2004 at 104)

Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 at 224 (per Gleeson CJ)

Competing public interests in context of government papers, information and beyond

* Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39

A-G (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia (1988) 165 CLR 30 (MSG 2004 at 127-129)

* Minister for Mineral Resources v Newcastle Newspapers (1998) 40 IPR 403

National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd (NRMA) v Geeson (2001) 39 ACSR 401; [2001] NSWSC 832; Appeal dismissed in [2001] NSWCA 343 (11/10/01)

(c) Remedies Remedies of :

(i) Injunction

(ii) delivery up

(iii) constructive trust

Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR 4th 14; (1989) 16 IPR 27 (RR 2005 at 644-645; MSG 2004 at 117-118)

(iv) account of profits

(v) quantum meruit (contemplated by MSG 2004 at 117)

(vi) equitable compensation

* Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd [1980] VR 224

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR 4th 577 (RR 2005 at 647)

The notion of the springboard

MSG 2004 at 92-94

(3) Contractual obligations of confidence

(a) Contractual duties: express or implied Common law contractual duties: express or implied

Implied equitable duty to serve employer with good faith

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172 (18 July 2007)

(b) Scope of obligation

20

Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 185 ALR 152

(c) Example context: Employees and restraints of trade* Faccenda Chicken v Fowler [1985] 1 A11 ER 724

* NP Generations Pty Ltd v Feneley (2001) 80 SASR 151

* Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317; (1991) 20 IPR 481 (NSW CA)

Woolworths Limited v Olson [2004] NSWCA (6 October 2004)

Bluescope Steel v Kelly [2007] FCA 517 (12 April 2007) at [88]-[90] regarding ‘know-how’

*Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172 (18 July 2007)

7. BUSINESS REPUTATION

Reading from Prescribed Materials

MSG 2004: Ch 16, 17, 18. RR 2005: Ch 16

A. Passing off

(1) Origins of passing off

RR 2005 at 881-883

Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199

(2) Elements of the Action

*Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731 (MBG 2007 at 594; RR 2005 at 883-888)

*Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193

(3) 1 st Requirement - Reputation

(a) What commercial activities are covered?

(b) How is reputation fixed in the minds of consumers?

*Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851

(c) How is reputation proved?

What evidence is required?

(d) Need for the public to associate product/service with a particular ‘source’

(e) Is local business activity required?

21

* Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193 (MBG 2007 at 632; RR 2005

at 902)

BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363

(f) The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words

*McCain Foods v County Fair Foods (1981) RPC 69

*Hornsby Building Information Centre v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216

BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363

(4) 2 nd Requirement - Misrepresentation

(a) Types of misrepresentation

Source of product, substitution of product, quality of product

*Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851 (RS 2005 at 463-

467; RR 2005 at 888-892)

*Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (1990) 17 IRR 1 (RR 2005 at 894-900)

Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Limited [1960] Ch 263

Some recent cases:

Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v Next Publishing Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 625 at paras 24-36 (Total Girl v Girl

Power case)

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd [2003] FCA 786 at [66]-[69] (Goggomobil

case)

Collins Debden Pty Ltd v Cumberland Stationery Co Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2005] FCA 1398 (Desk Calendar

Refill case)

(b) What is the effect of ‘intention to deceive’?

Intention to deceive is not required

Australian Woollen Mills v FS Walton & Co (1937) 58 CLR 641

(c) Misrepresentation in the context of ‘character merchandising’General discussion of principles: RR 2005 at 906-912

* Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited (1989) ATPR 40-948 (RR 2005 at 906-907)

*Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 (discussed in MBG 2007 at 650 and

509-512; RR 2005 at 892-894)

*Hogan v Koala Dundee (1988) 83 ALR 187; 12 IPR 508 (RR 2005 at 908)

*Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 451 (Duff

Beer case) (RR 2005 at 908)

22

(d) DisclaimersWhat effect does a disclaimer have?

(5) 3 rd Requirement – Damage

Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354

B. Related statutory actions

(a) Relevant statutes and provisions

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): ss52 and 53Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW): ss42 and 43

(b) Section 52 TPA

* Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 (RR 2005 at 914-918)Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 16 IPR 431 at 440 (Hill J) (RR 2005 at 922-923)* Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481 (RR 2005 at 918-921)

(i) ‘trade or commerce’

Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594

(ii) Identify the ‘misrepresentation’ said to arise

Identifying what the misrepresentation might be also involves considering what the reputation is of the plaintiff’s good/service

(iii) ‘misleading or deceptive’

Who must be misled or deceived? How is the relevant class identified? Mere confusion is not enough Evidence of actual deception is persuasive but not essential Court must decide if a reasonably significant number of consumers in the class would be likely to

be misled or deceived

(iv) Intention to deceive is not required

(c) An additional provision: Section 53 TPA

(d) Remedies

RR 2005 at 925-926

Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 80, 82, 87, 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)

8. TRADE MARKS

Required reading from Prescribed Materials

23

MSG 2004: Ch 19, 20 RR 2005: Ch 17, 18, 19

(1) Origins of trade mark system

RR 2005 at 932-937

(2) Registration procedure

RR 2005 at 948-951

Brief overview of the registration process:

application acceptance or rejection opposition registration

(3) What is a trade mark?

(i) Definition of trade mark

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“TMA”):

s17 – ‘trade mark’ s6 – ‘sign’

(ii) Case law on what constitutes a trade mark

Smith Kline French (Australia) Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks (1967) 116 CLR 628

Re Coca Cola Trade Marks [1986] RPC 421

* Coca Cola v All Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481 (RR 2005 at 938-941)

* Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 IPR 257

* Kenman Kandy v Registrar of Trade Marks (2001) 52 IPR 137 (RR 2005 at 956-957)

Baird J, “The Registrability of Functional Shape Marks” (2002) 13 AIPJ 218

(4) Other requirements incorporated within s17

(i) The requirement of ‘use or intended to be used’

‘use’ - s7 TMA

*Imperial Group Limited v Phillip Morris & Co Limited [1980] 1 FSR 146 (MBG 2007 at 664) (‘Nerit’)

defensive marks - s185 TMA

(ii) Trade mark must distinguish goods or services

The notion of ‘capability to distinguish’

24

Benefits of invented words, coined expressions, concocted shapes

The effect of s41 TMA - 3 ways that a trade mark can be ‘capable of distinguishing’:

(a) s41(3) – trade mark is ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’

(b) s41(5) – trade mark is to some extent ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’

(c) s41(6) – trade mark is not ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’ but becomes so through ‘use’

Cases on ‘capability to distinguish’:

*Mark Foy’s Limited v Davies Coop & Co Limited (1956) 95 CLR 190 (MBG 2007 at 700; RR 2005 at 958-962) (‘Tub Happy’)*Howard Auto Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Limited (1946) 72 CLR 175 (MBG 2007 at 697) (‘Rohoe’)Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 (MBG 2007 at 685; RR 2005 at 965-967) (‘Michigan’)* Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 40 IPR 498 (RR 2005 at 968-970) (‘Oregon’)Woolworths Ltd v BP Plc (2006) FCAFC 132 (‘Colour Green’) (HC Special Leave application dismissed) (MBG 2007 at 711)

(iii) Dealt with in course of trade

Re New York Yacht Club Application

(5) Certain ‘signs’ will not be registered – grounds for rejection of an application

Part 4 Div 2 TMA (ss39-44) sets out the grounds upon which an application will be rejected:

s39 – mark contains certain signs (ie. prescribed signs)

s40 – mark cannot be represented graphically

s41 – mark does not distinguish applicant’s goods and services

s42 – mark is scandalous or contrary to law

s43 – mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592

Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663 at [27] (1 December 2006)

s44 – mark is identical etc to trade mark

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592

Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411

(6) Grounds for opposition to registration

Part 5 Div 2 TMA (ss57-62A) sets out the grounds upon which a trade mark application can be opposed:

s57 - same grounds as for rejection of application under Part 4 Div 2, except s40

s58 – applicant not owner of mark

s58A – opponent’s earlier use of similar trade mark (a new ground from 23/10/06))

s59 – applicant not intending to use mark

25

s60 – trade mark similar to mark that has acquired a reputation (amended from 23/10/06)

s61 – mark consists of a false geographical indication

s62 – application is defective

s62A – application made in bad faith (a new ground from 23/10/06))

(7) Ownership, rights, assignment and licensing

(i) Who can make an application

s27 TMA

*Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391 (RS 2005 at 495-499; RR 2005 at 988-990)

Moorgate Tobacco Co Limited v Phillip Morris Limited (No 2) (1984) 59 ALJR 77

(ii) Rights of registered owner

s20 – rights given by registration s21 – trade mark is personal property s22 – power of registered owner to deal with trade mark

(iii) licensing – the ‘authorised user’

s6 – definition of ‘authorised use’ s26 – powers of authorised user

(8) Infringement

(i) Overview of infringement principles

key provision: s120 TMA

Three (3) categories of infringement under s120 TMA:

(a) s120(1) : infringing use in relation to registered goods or services

(b) s120(2) : infringing use in relation to ‘same description’ or closely related goods or services

(c) s120(3) : infringement of well-known trade marks

common element: infringing mark must be ‘substantially identical or deceptively similar’

(ii) The requirement that there is ‘use’ by the infringer as a trade mark

Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407 (MBG 2007 at 741)

* Coca Cola Distributors v All Fect Distributors Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481 (MBG 2007 at 749)

*Johnson & Johnson Australia v Sterling Pharmaceuticals (1991) 21 IPR 1 (RR 2005 at 999)

*Top Heavy v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282 (RR 2005 at 999)

Pepsico Australia Pty Limited (t/a Frito-Lay) v Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited (1996) 33 IPR 161 (RR 2005 at 999)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 IPR 257 (RR 2005 at 100-1001)

(iii) Another limit to infringement: secondary dealings (including parallel imports)

26

s123 TMA

*R A & A Bailey & Co Limited v Boccaccio Pty Limited (1986) 6 IPR 279

Transport Tyre Sales Pty Ltd v Montana Tyres and Rims Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 481

(iv) Tests of ‘substantially identical’ or ‘deceptively similar’

(a) ‘substantially identical’

* Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407 (RR 2005 at 996-997)

(b) ‘deceptively similar’

* Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407 (RR 2005 at 996-997)

* Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641 (RR 2005 at 1001-1002)

Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co Ltd (1994) 28 IPR 193 (RR 2005 at 1002)

Polaroid Corporation v Sole N Pty Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 49 (RR 2005 at 1002 and 1004)

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592 (RR 2005 at 1003)

Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths (1999) 45 IPR 411 (‘Woolworths Metro’)Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 767 (23 June 2006) (‘Schmackos’)Beecham Group Plc v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 838 (22 June 2005) (‘Macleans’)Torpedoes Sportswear Pty Ltd v Thorpedo Enterprises Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 901 (27 August 2003)

Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 196 (6 August 2004)

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique v Senator Automation Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1391 (18 July 2007)

(9) Defences to infringement

s122 – use in ‘good faith’ and other exemptions (including honest concurrent use; s122(1)(f))

s124 – prior and continuous use

(10) Remedies for infringement

s20(2) – registered owner can commence proceedings

s26(1)(b) – authorised user entitled to commence proceedings in certain circumstances

s125 – where relief can be sought

s126 – relief that can be claimed: injunction, account of profits or damages

s127 – special case where plaintiff not entitled to damages

Pt 14 TMA – criminal procedures and penalties for counterfeiting

s129 – groundless threats

27

(11) Amendment and cancellation of registration

Pt 8 Div 1 – action by Registrar of Trade Marks

Pt 8 Div 2 – action by Court

28

ASSIGNMENT

There is one assignment in Intellectual Property. The maximum word limit for the assignment is 2000 words (inclusive of all footnotes but not bibliography).

Although the assignment is voluntary, students are strongly encouraged to complete it. Students must submit the assignment by the due date (no extensions will be granted), and should achieve a grade of at least 50% to demonstrate an understanding of the subject. See the LEC Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments which can be accessed on the LEC Webcampus and the advice in your Course Information Handbook before submitting assignments.

The completed assignment should be lodged through the LEC Webcampus by 9.00am on the following date:

Assignment Tuesday 22 January 2008 – Monday 18 February 2008

(Week 8)

Students may submit either assignment question.  It is not necessary to complete both questions, however, students are encouraged to do both questions if they wish. Assignments must be submitted between 22 January and 18 February 2008.  Assignments submitted after 18 February 2008 will not be marked.

ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

To obtain the Intellectual Property assignment questions for the Summer Session 2007-08, please follow the instructions below:

1. Register online with the LEC (see page 27 of the Course Information Handbook for detailed instructions). Once you have registered, you will have access to all the facilities on the LEC Webcampus.

2. Then go into the Webcampus, select the Course Materials section and click on the link to the Assignment questions for this subject.

29