24 May 2010

German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling"

Here's another article in connection with the German Supreme Court ruling that I mentioned yesterday. It indicates that the decision is not a landmark ruling. Rather it's a continuation of a long line of thinking by the German courts. According to this author it's the recognition of the solution of a technical problem which is solved by a programmed computer that leads to a potential patent.

This is in line with the present European approach.

IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

23 May 2010

German Supreme Court on Patents on Computer-Implemented Inventions - BLOG@IPJUR.COM

Here's an excellent report by Axel Horns on a recent case heard by the German Supreme Court. Good to read that the Germans are on the right track. Hopefully, the rest of Europe will follow.

21 May 2010

USPTO's Facebook Page

Nice to see the USPTO getting into Facebook. I wonder if IPAustralia will do the same...

Facebook | United States Patent and Trademark Office

High Court - Ignorance is Bliss for Registered Owners

Case: E.& J.Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [ 2010 ] HCA 15
Venue: High Court of Australia
Judges: French CJ, Gummow JJ, Heydon JJ, Crennan JJ and Bell JJ


"Use of a trade mark"
"Authorised use"
"In the course of trade"

Main Issue 

Did the circumstances fall short of constituting "use" within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act because neither the registered owner nor an authorised user engaged in any act or conduct known by them to have had, or potentially to have, the result that the goods to which the registered trade mark was attached would be dealt with in some way within Australia in the course of trade?


It is not necessary for either the registered owner or an authorised user to have such knowledge for the use to constitute the necessary use in the course of trade required by the Act.


In the Federal Court (E & J Gallo Winery vs Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2008) 77 IPR 69), Gallo claimed that Lion Nathan had infringed Gallo's Australian trademark registration for BAREFOOT in respect of wines. Gallo was unsuccessful in this infringement claim. But it was successful on appeal to the Full Court (E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 27).

By cross-claim in the Federal Court, Lion Nathan applied to have the registered trade mark removed from the register on the grounds of non-use from 7 May 2004 to 8 May 2007.

The Full Court upheld the primary judge's finding that Lion Nathan's non-use application was made out and that Gallo's trademark should be removed from the register. Gallo appealed that finding.

19 May 2010

Microsoft sues Salesforce.com over patents

Here's one to follow. Gone are the days when Microsoft was the target of patentees. It seems that Microsoft have learnt their lesson well.

Microsoft sues Salesforce.com over patents | Beyond Binary - CNET News

18 May 2010

Waiting, waiting - Another Day Without Bilski Decision, What Does it Mean?

Here's a good article by Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.

This decision will no doubt have a global impact. As far as Australia is concerned, a limitation on the ability to obtain a patent on software very much governs the decision to go ahead in the first place.

But it appears that the US Supreme Court is having some difficulties in reaching its own decision.

13 May 2010

From Class 99 - Stabilo Stumbles at OHIM

This is an interesting post from the class 99 blog. Most of us who have spent a significant portion of our lives studying will be familiar with the STABILO markers.


12 May 2010

Jockey's Reputation Wins Out

Jockey International Inc v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22

Jockey is the registered owner of a number of trade marks relating to underwear featuring JOCKEY as a component. The trade mark has been used in Australia since at least 1947. It was first used in the US in 1929.

Wilkinson filed an application for registration of THROTTLE JOCKEY on 2 August 2006 in respect of "T-shirts, caps, beanies, head bands, sweat bands". The application was accepted on 31 October 2006 and advertisement of acceptance ran from 7 December 2006. Jockey filed a Notice of Opposition on 7 March 2007. Eventually, the issues to be determined related to Sections 42(b), 44, 60 and 62A of the Act.

04 May 2010

ACTA - An Australian Viewpoint

Kimberlee Weatherall, a lecturer at the University of Queensland, has analysed ACTA from an Australian point of view. Her report can be found here - http://works.bepress.com/kimweatherall/21/.

03 May 2010

Delegate Compares LIDL to LITL

Re: Opposition by Lidl Stiftung & Co KG to registration of trade mark application 1200990(9) (International Registration Designating Australia No 934438) - LITL - filed in the name of Aquent LLC.

Request to adjourn hearing refused; Section 44 - Trade marks deceptively similar to opponent's LIDL trade marks - Protection refused.

Lidl filed a notice of opposition to the registration of the trade mark LITL in respect of Class 9: Computers; mobile computers; notebook computers; laptop computers.