Subject Guide - The University of Sydney

martencrushInternet and Web Development

Dec 8, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

883 views




D
IPLOMA IN
L
AW


LEGAL PROFESSION

ADMISSION BOARD


LAW EXTENSION COMMIT
TEE


LAW EXTENSION COMMIT
TEE SUBJECT GUIDE







22 INTELLECTUAL PRO
PERTY

SUMMER SESSION 2013
-
14


This Guide includes the Law Extension Committee’s course information a
nd teaching program and the
Legal Profession Admission Board’s syllabus. The syllabus is contained under the heading “Prescribed
Topics and Course Outline” and has been prepared in accordance with Rule 27H(a) of the
Legal
Profession Admission

Rules 2005.






Course Description and Objectives


1

Lecturer


1

Assessment


1
-
2

March 2014 Examination


2

Lecture Program


3

Weekend Schools 1 and 2


4

Texts and Materials


5
-
6

Prescribed Topics and Course Outline


6
-
33

Compulsory Assignment


34

Assignment

Question


34





1

LAW EXTENSION COMMIT
TEE

SUMMER 2013
-
14

22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY





COURSE DESCRIPTION A
ND OBJECTIVES


The law of intellectual property includes the areas of copyright, design, patents, confidential
information, business reputation an
d 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.


Thro
ughout 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 o
f intellectual property law with other areas
such as trade practices law.




LECTURERS


Ms Therese Catanzariti, BEc, LLB (Hons 1)(Syd), LLM (Merit) (Lond)


Ms Catanzariti is a barrister at the NSW Bar and specialises in intellectual property, commercial
l
itigation, wills/probate and taxation. She was previously a senior associate at Mallesons Stephen
Jaques (now King Wood Mallesons), as well as senior legal counsel at Nokia Corporation and GE
Healthcare in Finland and Sweden. She is a graduate of the Uni
versity of Sydney, holding Bachelor of
Economics (Accounting), Bachelor of Laws (Hons 1) degree, and a graduate of the University of
London (QMW) holding a Master of Laws (Merit) degree. Ms Catanzariti has also lectured in
intellectual property at UTS, co
pyright law at UTS and University of Sydney, designs law at UTS, and
Entertainment Law at University of New South Wales.


Ms Beth Oliak, BSEE (Northwestern University), JD (Washington U
niversity in St Louis School
of
Law)



Ms Oliak is a barrister speciali
sing in intellectual property and general commercial litigation. Prior to
relocating to Australia, she practiced exclusively in patent litigation for a number of years at a major
New York law firm. She is also a registered patent attorney in the United Sta
tes and has drafted and
prosecuted numerous patent applications. She holds an undergraduate degree in electrical
engineering and thus her focus has been primarily on computer hardware and software patents. She
has lectured, given presentations and prepared

articles regarding issues relating to patent law on a
number of occasions.



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 h
ave 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.


To register with the LEC, go to
www.sydney.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.



2

Eligibility to Sit for E
xaminations


In accordance with the
Legal Profession Admission Rules
, the LEC must be satisfied with a student’s
performance in a subject in order for the student to be eligible to sit for the
e
xamination, conducted by
the Legal Profession Admission Board
(LPAB). Assignments are used to assess eligibility.


Students are expected to achieve at least a pass mark of 50% in assignments to be eligible to sit for
examinations. However, a category of “deemed eligible” has been introduced to offer students whose
a
ssignment mark is between 40
-
49% an opportunity to sit for the examination. In these circumstances
students are often advised not to sit. A mark below 40% means a student is not eligible to sit for the
e
xamination.


Assignments as part of the Board’s Exami
nations


Assignment results contribute 20% to the final mark in each subject.


The Law Extension Committee (LEC) administers the setting and marking of assignments. The LEC
engages the LPAB’s Examiners to assess or supervise the assessment of assignments.


Submission


Assignments must be submitted by
midnight on
the due date unless an extension has been granted.
Extensions must be requested by email prior to the due date. Specific supporting evidence must be
provided. Assignments that are more than ten day
s late will not be accepted. Late assignments attract
a penalty of one mark out of 20, or 5% of the total marks available, per day.


Assessment


Assignments are assessed according to the “Assignment Grading and Assessment Criteria” outlined
in the
Guide t
o the Presentation and Submission of Assignments
. Prior to the examination,
assignments will be returned to students and results posted on students’ individual results pages of
the LEC
W
ebcampus. Students are responsible for checking their results screen a
nd ascertaining their
eligibility to sit for the examination.


Review


Where a student’s overall mark after the
e
xamination is between 40
-
49%, the student’s assignment in
that subject will be included in the Revising Examiner’s review. The final examinati
on mark is
determined in accordance with this review. Assignment marks will not otherwise be reviewed.




MARCH 2014 EXAMINATI
ON


Candidates will be expected to have a detailed knowledge of the six (6) principal types of intellectual
property studied in t
he 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 intellectua
l 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 inte
llectual property studied in the course.


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



3


LECTURE PROGRAM


Lectures will be held on Monday nights commencing at 6.00pm on 4 November 2013. T
hey
will be
held
in

St James Lecture Theatre 4 (St James LT 4),

St James Campus,
on the corner of Phillip, King
and Elizabeth Streets in the heart of the city.


Please note that the program below is a general guide and may be varied according to need.


WEEK

T
OPIC

1

4 Nov


Introduction to Intellectual Property

Copyright

2

11 Nov


Copyright

3

18 Nov


Copyright

4

25 Nov


Industrial Designs

Copyright/Design Overlap


5

2 Dec

Trade Marks


6

9 Dec


Trade Marks



Study Break
:

Saturday
14 December

2013



Sunday
5 January 2014


7

6 Jan


Passing Off

8

13 Jan


Confidential Information


9

20 Jan


Patents

10

27 Jan



No Lecture Scheduled


Australia Day Public Holiday

11

3 Feb

Patents



12

10 Feb



Patents

Revision



4


WEEKEND SCHOOLS 1 AN
D 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 student
s.

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 und
erstanding of the topic, and to encourage
further reading. You should not rely on them alone.


Weekend School 1



TIME

MAJOR TOPICS

KEY READING

Saturday

30 November 2013: 4.00pm


8.00pm in
New Law School Seminar Room
030 (New LSSR 030)


4.10pm
-
5.20pm


I
ntroduction to Intellectual Property

Copyright




See readings under "Prescribed Topics
and Course Outline"


5.30pm
-
6.35pm


Copyright


6.45pm
-
8.00pm


Copyright

Sunday

1 December 2013
: 4.00pm


8.00pm in
New Law School Seminar Room 022
(New LSSR 022)


4.10pm
-
5.20pm


Copyright




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 READING

Saturday
1 February 2014
: 4.00pm


8
.00pm in
New Law School Seminar Room 115
(New LSSR 115)


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
2 February 2014
: 4.00pm


8.00pm in
New Law School Seminar Room 115
(New LSSR 115)


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


5


TEXTS AND MATERIALS


C
ours
e Materials




Supplementary Materials in Intellectual Property
(
available via the link to the Law Library in the
Course

Materials

section of the LEC Webcampus)



Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments

(available on the LEC Webcampus)


Prescri
bed Materials




LexisNexis Intellectual Property Collection 2013
, LexisNexis.



Stewart, Griffith & Bannister,
Intellectual Property in Australia
,
4
th

ed.

LexisNexis,
2010

(“
SGB
2010
”).
Commentary only, no case extracts. (5
th

ed 2013 may be available from D
ecember 2013)



Ricketson and Richardson,
Intellectual Property: Cases, Materials and Commentary
, 5
th

ed. Lexis
Nexis, 2012


Reference Materials


Australian current texts



Davison, Monotti, Wiseman
Australian Intellectual Property Law

, 2
nd

edition, Cambrid
ge Press,
2012 (
DMW 2012
) Commentary only, no case extracts



Price, Bodkin, Arnold, Adjei,

Intellectual Property Commentary and Materials

Casebook
, 5
th

edition, Thomson Reuters, 2012 (
PBA 2012
)


Other useful Australian texts



Ricketson,
The Law of Intellect
ual Property
, Thomson

Reuters
, 1999



Shanahan,
Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off
,

5
th

ed.

Thomson

Reuters
,
2012



Bodkin,
Patent Law in Australia
, Thomson Reuters, 2013



Phillips,
Protecting Designs Law and Litigation
, Thomson
Reuters
, 1994



Elkingt
on, Hall & Kell,
Annotated Trade Marks Act 1995,

LexisNexis,
2010


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 and online services




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



Lahore,
Copyright and Designs,

LexisNexis



Lahore
Paten
ts, Trade Marks and Related Rights

LexisNexis



Garnsey, Dwyer, Duffy and Covell,
Intellectual Property in Australia: Patents and Trade Marks,
LexisNexis



Periodicals




Australian Copyright Council Bulletin



Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin


6



Austr
alian Intellectual Property Law Journal



Copyright Reporter



Intellectual Property Forum


Blogs

http://ipwars.com/

-

Warwick Rothnie (Melbourne IP barrister)

http://ipkitten
.blogspot.com.au/

-

IPKat


English/EU IP blog

http://www.patentlyo.com/

-

Patently O


US IP blog




PRESCRIBED TOPICS AND COURSE OUTLINE


Many cases listed are relevant for more than one topic area. Most case
s 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 is identified next to the case reference.



1.

INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY


Relevant chapter for Topic 1 in Prescribed Materials




RR Ch1


(1)

What is intellectual property?




History

Bakers Marking Law 1266

Venetian Pat
ent Statute 1474

Statute of Monopolies 1623

Stationers Company

Statute of Anne 1709




Knowledge as Property




Intellectual Property philosophy


personal, economic, market

Millar v Taylor

(1769)
4 Burr. 2303; 98 ER 201




Intellectual Property as property




Pub
lic Domain




International aspects of intellectual property protection

Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886

Rome Convention for Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organisations 1961

Paris Conven
tion on Patents and Trade Marks

WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 1995

Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1969




Relevant Australian statutes

Constitution section 51(xxix)

Copyright Act 1968

Patents Act 1990

Trade

Marks Act 1995

Designs Act 2003

Australian Consumer Law (part of Competition and Consumer Act 2010)


7


Copyleft

Creative Commons

Open Source


Parliament’s right to create and curtail

JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia

[2012] HCA 43

(Tobacco Plain Packaging)


“Rethinking the role of intellectual property”, Dr Francis Gurry, Director
-
General WIPO,

WIPO Seminar, 22 August 2013



2.

COPYRIGHT


Relevant chapters fo
r Topic 2 in Prescribed Materials




SGB 2010: Ch 5, 6, 7 and 8.



DMW 2012: Ch
.
5, 6, 7, 8, and 9



PBA 2012 Part 2



RR 2012 Part 2



(1)

What is copyright?

(i)

Definitions of copyright

(ii)

Copyright as property


s196 Copyright Act (“
CA
”)

Dickens, Dickens v Hawksley
[
1935] 1 Ch 267

Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation
(1970) 121 CLR 154

(iii)

Fundamental distinction


‘form of expression’ vs ‘ideas and information’

Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd
[1938] Ch 106

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

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

L B (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd
[1979] R.P.C. 551

Zeccola v Universal City Studios
[1982] 46 ALR 189

Elwood v Cotton On

(2008) 80 IPR 566



(2)

Origin

and rationale of copyright




Statute of Anne
1709



Millar v Taylor
(1769)

4 Burr. 2303; 98 ER 201



(3)

The subsistence of copyright


The 4 requirements for copyright protection:


(i)

Authorship

and Connecting Factors


created by a ‘qualified person’


ss32(4)
, 84, 184
CA.


(ii)

Subject matter



‘works’ and ‘subject matter other than works’


ss10, 32, 89
-
92.


(iii)

Material form



ss10, 22 CA.



8



Nine Network Australia v Australian Broadcasting Corp
(2000) 48 IPR 335 (Y2K
fireworks)


(iv)

Originality



s32 CA.




Walter v Lane
[1
900] AC 539



* University of London Press v University Tutorial Press
[1916] 2 Ch 601



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 Desk
top Marketing Systems Pty Ltd
(2001) 51 IPR 257



* Nine Network Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd
(2009) 239 CLR 458
;



*
Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd

(2010) 90 IPR 1




Ladbroke Football Ltd v William Hill Football Lt
d
[1964] 1 WLR 2
73



(4)

Works


4 types of ‘works’ under Part III CA.



(a)

Literary


(i)

Types of literary works


(ii)

General principles




*University of London Press v University Tutorial Press

[1916] 2 Ch 607



Hollinrake v Truswell

(1894) 3 Ch D 420


(ii
i)

Short and insubstantial literary works




*Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants

[1982] RPC 69



Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Limited

[1964] 1 WLR 273



Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Ltd

[1940] AC 112



Nine

Network Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd
(2009) 239 CLR 458



State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies Pty Ltd (No.2) [2009] FCA 737



Fairfax Media Publications Pty Lt
d v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd
(2010) 88 IPR
11
;



Elwood Clothing
v Cotton On Clothing
(2008) 80 IPR 566


(iv)

Computer programs




Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc

(1986) 161 CLR 171



* Autodesk v Dyason

(1991) 22 IPR 163



* Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd

(1999) 45 IP
R 353


(b)

Dramatic




* Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand
(1988) 16 IPR 1



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



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 1 (photo shoot for ‘Oasis’
album cover)



Norowzian v
Ark Ltd; Guin
n
ess
Worldwide

[1998] EWHC 315
(Guiness “Anticipation” ad)



9

(c)

Musical




CBS Records Australia Ltd v Gross
(1989) 15 IPR 385



EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited

v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd
(2011) 90 IPR 50


(d)

Art
istic


(i)

Definition
: s10(1) CA.

(ii)

Paintings



* Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond
[1983] FSR 32



Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd v Melbourne Chinese Press Pty Ltd
(2003) 58 IPR 1



Cummins v Vella

[2002] FCAFC 218 (Full Court unreport
ed 16/07/2002)

(iii)

Sculptures



* Lincoln Industries Ltd v Wham
-
O Manufacturing Co
(1984) 3 IPR 115 (Frisbee)



* Greenfield Products v Rover
-
Scott Bonnar
(1990) 17 IPR 417



Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd
(1997) 39 IPR 1

(iv)

Drawings



* Elwood Clothing v

Cotton On Clothing
(2008) 80 IPR 566

at [14], [47]
-
[54] (definition of
drawing)



*
Interlego AG v Croner Trading
(1992) 111 ALR 577



LED Builders v Eagle Homes
(1999) 44 IPR 24



Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd
(1
999) 46 IPR 309



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



Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd
[2008] FCA 375 (alfresco quadrant)



Lott v JBW & Friends
[2000] SASC 3 (opera in the outback)

(v)

Engravings


(vi)

Photogra
phs


(vii)

Buildings and models of buildings


(viii)

Works of artistic craftsmanship



Cuisenaire v Reed

(1963) VR 719



Muscat v Le
(2004) 60 IPR 276



Merlet v Mothercare plc

(1984) 2 IPR 456



George Henscher v Restawhile Upholstery (Lanes) Limited

(1975) RPC 31



Coogi A
ustralia Pty Limited v Hysport International Pty

Limited

(1998) 41 IPR 593



Sheldon v Metrokane
(2004) AIPC 91
-
972



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

204



(5)

Subject Matter other than works



(a)

Cinematograph films


Aristocrat Leisure Ind
ustries Pty Limited v Pacific Gaming Pty Limited

(2001) 50 IPR 29


10

Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd

(1997) 37 IPR 462

Sega Enterprises Ltd v Gottlieb Electronics Pty Ltd
(1996) 35 IPR 161


(b)

Sound and Television Broadcasts


* Network Ten

Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd
(2004) 59 IPR 1 (“The Panel” case), esp 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
word
s used in the story). Applies to newspaper stories, magazines and the like.


Nationwide News Pty Limited v Copyright Agency Limited

(1996) 134 IPR 53


(d)

Sound recordings


CBS Records Australia Limited v Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Limited

(1987
) 9 IPR 440


(e)

Performers’ protection




(6)

Ownership



(a)

Works


owner is ‘author’


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


Co
-
ownership/ joint owners



Primary Health Care Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

(2010) 86 IPR 259
;



Prior v Sheldon

(2000) 48 IPR 301


Commissioned works

Journalists’ copyright

Employee authors



*
Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd v Hinkley

(2001) 50 IPR 565



Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited

[2012] FCA 779 (Department of Education questionnaire)


No human author



Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories

Company Pty Ltd

(2010) 90 IPR 1

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


(b)

Subject matter other than works


owner is ‘maker’


s22 CA

National Rugby League v Singtel Optus

(Optus Now case)
(2012) 95 IPR 321


(c)

Duration




(7)

Exclusive Rights


(a)

Works


s31 CA



11

R
eproduction

CBS Records Australia Ltd v Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd

(1987) 9 IPR 440

King Features Syndicate v O&M Kleeman

[1941] AC 417


P
ublication

A
vel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd

(1990) 171 CLR 88


Public performance

APRA v Tolbush (1985)
62 ALR 521

*APRA v Commonwealth Bank
(1992) 25 IPR 157


Communication to the public

*

Telstra v APRA
(1997) 191 CLR 140

*

Roadshow v iinet
(trial judge d
ecision) (2011) 89 IPR 1

National Rugby League v Singtel Optus

(Optus Now case)
(2012) 95 IPR 321


(b)

Subject matter other than works


Cinematograph films


s86 CA

Television and sound broadcasts


s87 CA

Published editions of work
s


s88 CA

Sound recordings


s85 CA


(c)

Performers


ss248G and 248J CA



(8)

Assignment and licensing


(a)

Assignment


ss196(1), 197 CA

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc

(1999) 46 IPR 53

Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs A
ustralia Pty Ltd

[2009] FCA 799

Acorn Computers v MCS Microcomputers

(1984) 4 IPR 214

Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Educational Resear
ch Ltd

[2013] FCAFC 62


(b)

Licensing 196(2), 197


ss196(2), 197 CA


(i)

exclusive licence (s119)

(ii)

implied licence


Beck v Montana

(1963) 80 WN NSW 1578

*Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales
(2008) 233 CLR 279

Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi
-
Aventis Au
stralia Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2012] FCAFC 102

(generic drug
manufacturer not implied right to use original patent owner product information documents)


(c)

Statutory licences


(
d)

Collecting societies

APRA


Australian Performing Right Association (musical works)

PPCA


Phonographic Performance

Company Ltd (sound recordings)

CAL


Copyright Agency (literary works)


12

Screenrights (cinematograph films)

Viscopy (artistic works)

(manag
ed by Copyright Agency)



(9)

Infringement
-

introduction


(a)

Direct and indirect infringement



(10)

Direct infringement of works


(a)

Substantiality (s14 CA)


(i)

Works


* Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Films Services

[1934] 1 Ch 593


Ladbroke
(Football) v William Hill

[1964] I All ER 465; 1 WLR 273

Autodesk v Dyason
[2002] FCA 1206

Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited

(1999) 45 IPR 353



Icetv v Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd
(2009) 80 IPR 451



EMI Songs Australia
v Larrikin Music Publishing
(2011) 90 IPR 50



(ii)

Other subject matter


Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd
(2004) 59 IPR 1


(b)

Need for a causal connection


*Corelli v Gray

(1913) 29 TLR 570

*Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron
[1963] Ch 587

SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems

(1985) 159 CLR 466

EMI Songs v Larrikin Music Publishing

(2011) 90 IPR 50
;


(c)

Need for resemblance or objective similarity


(i)

General


* Kenrick v Lawrence
(1890) 25 QB 99


(ii)

Particular example: Literary and dramatic works: plots and characters


* Universal City Studios Inc v Zeccola
[1982] AIPC 90
-
019


(iii)

‘Look and feel’



*Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd

(2008)
80 IPR 566


(d)

Proof and evidence

Allam v Aristocrat
(2012) 95 IPR 242



(11
)

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


13

* Roadshow Films P
ty Ltd v iiNet Limited
(2012) 95 IPR 29
;

National Rugby League v Singtel Networks

(2012) 201 FCR 147 (“Optus Now” case)


(ii)

Peer to peer networks


* Universal Music v Cooper
[2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006)


s.112E does not pr
eclude 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, but no decision due to settlement)

A&M Re
cords v Napster Inc

239 F3d 1004 (9
th

Cir 2001) 50 IPR 232 (US case)

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


Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited
(2012) 95 IPR 29



(12
)

Secondary 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

Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation
(1992) 23 IPR 377



(1
3
)

Defences


(a)

Exceptions and limitations on protection in general


(b)

Fair dealing: ss40, 41, 41A and 42 (for Pt IV


see 103A
-
103C)


* De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Limited

(1990) 18 IPR 292

* TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten

50 IPR 335
(The
Panel case)
(trial


Conti J); (2002) 55 IPR 112
(Full Court)


s41A


the new ‘parody or satire’ defence

Campbell v Acuff Rose

510 U.S. 569 (1994)


(c)

Other defences


(d)

Other protection available to copyright owners


Technological protection measures


Part 5, Div 2A (ss116AK
-
116D)

Stevens

v
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment
(2005) HCA 58



(14
)

Remedies


RR 2005 at 452
-
462


(a)

Remedies in general


(b)

Damages under s115 CA


14


(i)

Compensatory damages


s115(2)


* Autodesk Australia Pty Limit
ed v Cheung

(1990) 17 IPR 69

Prior v Sheldon

(2000) 48 IPR 301

Aristocrat Technologies Australia v DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Ltd
[2007] FCAFC 40 (29
March 2007)

Elwood v Cotton On
(2009) 81 IPR 378
; (decision on damages)

Norm Engi
neering v Digga Australia
[2008] FCAFC 33 ; (2007)162 FCR 1

Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd

[2013] FCAFC
62


(ii)

Additional damages



s115(4)


* Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung

(1990) 17 IPR 69

APRA v Pashalides 2000

(2000) 48 IPR 610

* Zero Tolerance Entertainment Inc v Venus Adult Shops Pty Ltd
[2007] FMCA 155

Allam v Aristocrat
(2012) 95 IPR 242

Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited

[2012] FCA 779


(iii)

A
ccount of profits

Dart v Décor
(1993) 179 CLR 101


(c)

Offences


Part V
, Div 5 CA


(15
)

Moral Rights


Part IX CA


Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd

[2006]
(2006) 70 IPR 172
;

Perez v Fernandez

(2012) 260 FCR 1


(16) Groundless Threats of Copyright Infringement


s202 CA

Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA
62



3. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS


Required reading




SGB 2010: Ch 10



DMW 2012: Ch 10



PBA 2012: Ch 14



RR 2012: Ch 9


(1)

Requirements for registration


(a)

Meaning of ‘design’



Definition of ‘design’


s5
Designs Act 2003

(“DA”)



in relation to a product

Applicatio
n for Type Font in name Microsoft (2007)
71 IPR 664

Re Wolanski’s Registered Design
(1953) 88 CLR 278



‘product’


s6 DA



‘visual features’


s7 DA

Dart Industries v Décor
(1989) 15 IPR 403

Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors


(1987) 9 IPR 353


15



‘ov
erall appearance of the product’


see s5 DA

monopoly in particular appearance

Re Wolanski’s Registered Design
(1953) 88 CLR 278

Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors


(1987) 9 IPR 353


(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

(iii)

disclosure in an earlier design application



‘new and distinctive’


ss16
-
19 DA

(i)

‘New’


not identica
l
compared to prior art base


s16(1) DA

(ii)

‘Distinctive’


not
substantially similar in overall impression

compared to prior art base



s16(2) and s19 DA

(iii)

“informed user”

Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd
(2008) 79 IPR 214 (on ‘informed user’)


L
ED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd

(2009)

80 IPR 105 (on ‘informed user’

(iv)

statement of newness and distinctiveness


Keller v LED Technologies
(2010) 87 IPR 1

(statement of newness and distinctiveness)

(v)

Certain things to be disr
egarded


s17 DA

(vi)

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



(2)

Outline of process of registration



(3)

Ownership


Who is entitled to seek regi
stration


s13 DA

Courier Pete Pty Ltd v Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 735


modular rainwater tanks


Foster’s Australia Limited v Cash’s (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2013] FCA 527 (
beer taps)



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




16

(4)

Infringement




Who may bring proceedings


s73(1) DA



When may proceedings be br
ought


s73(3) DA



Where may proceedings be commenced


s73(2) DA



Infringement by doing any exclusive rights of registered owners


s71 DA



D
esigns ‘substantially similar in overall impression’


s19 DA


Use of statement of newness and distinctiveness


Revie
w Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd

(2008) 79 IPR 236

(wrapdress)


Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd
(2008) 79 IPR 214

(wrapdress)


LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd

(2009)

80 IPR 105 (rear lights)


Multisteps Pty Limited
v Source and Sell Pty Limited

[2013] FCA 743

(fruit tubs)




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


Gram E
ngineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd

[2013] FCA 508

(fencing panel)




Counterclaim for rectification of Register


s74 DA


Foggin v Lacey

(2003) 57 IPR 225 (compare infringing pr
oduct to design not product)



(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



Relevant provisions: ss 74
-
77
Copyright Act

(1968)

(“CA”)



The overlap problem


what is it?



Definition of corresponding design


s74 CA



Copyright protection where corresponding design r
egistered


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


17

* Reg 17 of Copyright Regulations 1969

* Safe Sport Australia Pty Ltd v Puma Aus
tralia Pty Ltd
(1985) 4 IPR 120

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

Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd
(2005) 67 IPR 497 at
[221] (decision on ‘industrial application’ not disturbed in the appeal reporte
d at (2006) 70
IPR 1).

(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

*Burge v Swarbrick
[2007]

HCA 17; (2007) 234 ALR 204



Certain reproductions of artistic works do not infringe copyright


s77A CA


Polo/Lauren Company LP v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd
(2008) 80 IPR 531

(meaning of ‘embodied in’)



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.


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




SGB 2010: Ch 11
-
14



DMW 2012: Ch 12


15



PBA 2012: Part 3



RR 2012: Part 4



(1)

Origins and background




History

Venetian Statute

Darcy v Allin
(1602) Moore KB 671

Statute of Monopolies 1624



E
stablishment of the modern system



Rationale and objects
of the patent system

Powering Ideas: the innovation agenda for the 21st century

"Raising The Bar”
patent reforms (effective 15 April 2013)


Productivity Commission inquiry into the compulsory licensing provisions in the
Patents Act 1990


18



(2)

Requirement
s for patentability


(a)

The Requirements under s18




Types of patents: standard and innovation



Innovation patents:
Dura
-
Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd
(2009) 81 IPR 480
;



s18 defines what is a

‘patentable invention’

(i)

manner
of manufactur
e

(ii)

novelty

(iii)

inventive step

(iv)

useful

(v)

not secretly used



(b)

Manner of manufacture


(i)


What is a ‘manner of manufacture’?

Statute of Monopolies 1624

Re GEC Application (1942) 60 RPC 1



National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents

(
1959) 102 CLR 252

Diamond v Diehr
(1981) 450 US 175;

RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents
[2013] FCA 871



(ii)

Human treatment exception




The concept of ‘generally inconvenient’

* Joos v Commissioner of Patents

(1972) 126 CLR 611

(keratin treatm
ent for nails
and hair)

* Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare

(1994) 50 FCR 1

(sleep apnoea)

* Bristol
-
Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding

(2000) 46 IPR 553


Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc

[2013] FCA 65

(breast cancer gene
sequence)



(iii)

Computer software


* International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents

(1991) 33 FCR 218

* CCOM v Jiejing

(1994) 51 FCR 260


(iv)

Business methods, schemes, systems

Rolls
-
R
oyce Ltd’s Application
[1963] RPC 251

*
Welcome Real
-
Time SA v Catuity Inc
(2001) 51 IPR 327


19

*

Grant v Commissioner of Patents
(2006) 154 FCR 62

Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents
[2013] FCA 71

(method for calculating an
Index for using in financial investing)


(v)

Living organisms and developments in biotechnology


(c)

Novelty


(i)

Relevant statutory provisions




s7(1)
Patents Act

(Cth) 1990
(“PA”)



Diction
ary definitions of:
prior art information, prior art base, document, patent area


(ii)

Quantum of disclosure: anticipation


Hill v Evans
(1862) 4 De GF & J 288
(1862) 45 ER 1195

* Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fastener
s (Aust) Pty Ltd
(1993) 26 IPR 171
(trial judge’s (Hill J) discussion on anticipation)

* Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering

(1990) 16 IPR 545

Meyer Taylor v Vicarr Industries (1977) 137 CLR 228

MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son

[1998] 14
66 FCA; (1998) 43 IPR 287
(Sundberg J’s propositions on anticipation).


(iii)

Made publicly available


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

Griffin v Isaacs

(1938) 12 ALJR 169

Fomento v Mentmore
[1956] RPC 87



*

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia)

(1980) 144 CLR 253
(cannot mosaic)

Merck v Arrow Pharmaceuticals
(2006) 68 IPR 511

(Lunar magazine to selected hospitals
and universities)

Dennison Manufacturing v Monar
ch Marketing Systems
(1983) 1 IPR 431

(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 befor
e a learned society

Ralph M Parsons Co (Beavon’s Application)
[1978] FSR 226



Working of the invention in public for purpose of reasonable trial

Longworth v Emerton

(1951) 83 CLR 539

Newall & Elliott (1858) 4 CBNS 269;
(1858) 140

ER 1087



Non
-
consensual disclosure



12 month ‘grace period’ (from 1 April 2002)



20


(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 ar
ea


(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

* Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

(2002) 212 CLR 411

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

Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty Ltd

(No 2)
[2013] FCA 279


Relevance of hindsight considerations: see
Lockwood v Doric
[2007] 235 CLR 20
2.


(iii)

Common general knowledge: the relevant prior art knowledge base

* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia)

(1980) 144 CLR 253

Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports

(2006) 149 FCR 386


(iv)

‘CGK + 1’: the operation of s7(
3) PA

Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited

(2002) 54 IPR 449

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


Towards A Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System




Consultation Paper, November
2009

Intellectual Property (Raising the Bar) Ac
t 2012
-

combine
any

piece of prior art with common
general knowledge if the skilled addressee could reasonably be expected to combine the
two, not just the prior art that the skilled addressee could be reasonably expected to have
found


(e)

Useful/Utility


* Rehm v Websters Security Systems

(1988) 11 IPR 289


(f)

Secret use


* Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd

(2001) 52 IPR 75 (Full Fed Ct)


(g)

Internal objections: insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing




Insufficiency of description



Ambiguity of claims



Fair

basing

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd
[2004] 217 CLR 274


Towards A Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System




Consultation Paper, November 2009

Intellectual Property (Raising the Bar) Act 2012


similar to section 72(1)
(c)
English Patents
Act1977 Act: s 72(1)(c)


21

disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to
be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art; and the best method known to the applicant of
performing the

invention

The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and [fairly based on the matter described]
supported by matter disclosed in the specification



(h)

Other grounds of invalidity

s138 PA

S18(2) PA


human beings

Re Woo
-
Suk Hwang
[2004] AIPC 92
-
031

Fer
tilitescentrum AB and Luminis Pty Ltd
(2004) 62 IPR 420



(3)

The application process and the role of patent attorneys




The role of the patent attorney: ss200, 201 PA



The application process




(
4)

Ownership and exploitation of rights



Who may be granted a

patent


s15 PA


Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd
[2008] FCAFC 9

University of Western Australia v Gray

(2009) 82 IPR 206
;

Exclusive ‘exploitation’ rights of patent owner


s13 PA



Assignment of interest in patent


s14 PA



Term
of grant


s67 (standard patent), s68 (innovation patent)





Register


s187




Compulsory licences


s133




Crown Use


s163



(5)

Infringement


(a)

Relevant statutory provisions



Who may bring proceedings


ss120(2), (3) PA



When may proceedings be brought


s
120(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'


22


(b)

How is infringement determined?




Sc
ope of claim

*
Décor Corporation v Dart Industries

(1988) 13 IPR 385

Kinabulu Invstments v Barron and Rawson
[2008] FCAFC 178

at [44]

[45]




Construction of patent claims


approaches to construction (literal, purposive, pith and marrow)

Catnic Components v Hill and Smith

[19
82] RPC 183; [1978] FSR 405




Make

Dunlop Pneumatic Typre v David Moseley
(1904) 21 RPC 274

Bedford Industries v Pinefair
(1999) 42 IPR 330




Sell

Windsurfting International v Petit
(1984] 2 NSWLR 196



(c)

Contributory infringement


s117 PA

Rescare Ltd v Ana
esthetic Supplies Pty Ltd

(1992) 111 ALR 205

Bristol
-
Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co
(2000) 46 IPR 553 (Full Fed Ct)

Northern Territory v Collins
(2008) 78 IPR 225


(d)

Defences to infringement


s118, s119, s119A, 119B, 119C PA

Merck KGAA v Integra Life S
ciences Limited
(June 2005) US Supreme Court (defence to patent
infringement in US: research exemption)

New “Raising the Bar” defences


experimental purposes, obtaining regulatory approval



(6)

Remedies



Remedies under s122 PA



Innocent infringement


s12
3(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.




Sun World Inc v Regis
trar of Plant Variety Rights

(1997) 75 FCR 528

Grain Pool of WA v Commonwealth

[2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 475; 46 IPR 515




23


6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION


Reading from Prescribed Materials:




SGB 2010: Ch 3, 4



DMW 2012: Ch 11



PBA: Ch



RR 2012: Ch 11



(1)

Background to breach of confidence action




Protection of ideas and information



Information is not property

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v

Philip Morris Ltd
(1984) 156 CLR 414

Farah Constructions v Say Dee
(2007) 230 CLR 89



Jurisdictional basis for breach of co
nfidence action



Contractual and equitable bases can co
-
exist:
Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation

[2010] FCAFC 21;
(2010) 265 ALR 281




(2)

Equitable action for breach of confidence


(a)

Origins and elements of the equi
table action



Origins

Prince Albert v Strange
(1849) 47 ER 1302


Personal

Argyll v Argyll

[1967] Ch 302

Government


Commonwealth v John Fairfax

(1981) 147 CLR 39




Elements of the modern action

*

Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Coll of Customs for Vic

(1987
) 14 FCR 434

Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co

(1948) 65 RPC 203

* Coco v A N Clark (Engineers)

[1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587

* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community
Services and Health

(1991) 28

FCR 291



(i)

information identified with specificity

* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community Services
and Health

(1991) 28 FCR 291

(ii)

Information must have necessary quality of confidence

*

Moorgate Toba
cco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd

(1984) 156 CLR 414

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWCA 172;
(2007) 73 IPR 326
;

Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co
(Hayes) Ltd

[1967] RPC 375 (springboard)

(ii
i
)

Information must be provid
ed in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence

*

Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community
Services and Health

(1991) 28 FCR 291

Coco v A N Clark (Engineers)

[1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587

(
moped)


24

TF Indust
rial Pty Ltd v Career Tech Pty Ltd
[2011] NSWSC 1303

(
database)

Franklin v Giddins

[1978] Qd R 72; 1B IPR 807 (
steal nectarine cuttings)

Cronulla
-
Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Limited v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2013] NSWSC 494

Armstrong St
rategic Management & Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty
Ltd

(2012) 295 ALR 348

(iv)

Breach of confidence / Unconscionable use or disclosure

Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Depar
tment of Community
Services and Health

(1991) 28 FCR 291



The position of third parties



Wheatley v Bell

[1982] 2 NSWLR 544

Ashburton v Pape
[1913] 2 Ch 469


(b)

Defences


the iniquity rule and public interest defence




The iniquity rule

Gartside v Outram
(1856)

26 LJ Ch 113

Castrol Australia v Emtech Associates

(1980) 51 FLR 184

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

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

* Minister for Mineral Resources v Newcastle Newspapers

(1998) 40 IPR 403

National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd (NRMA) v Geeson (
2001) 39 ACS
R 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

L
AC

Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd
(1989) 61 DLR 4
th

14; (1989) 16
IPR 27

(iv)

account of profits

(v)

quantum meruit


25

(vi)

equitable compensation

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

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd
(1999) 167 DLR 4
th

577



The notion of the springboard

Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply C
o
(Hayes) Ltd

[1967] RPC 375


(3)

Contractual obligations of confidence

Co
-
existence of equity and contract principles:
Optus Networks Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd

[2010]
FCAFC 21


(a)

Contractual duties: express or implied



Common law

contractual duties: expr
ess or implied



Implied
equitable

duty to serve employer with good faith


Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWCA 172;
(2007) 73 IPR 326

Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines
(1995) 185 CLR 410

Codelfa Constructions v State Ra
il Authority NSW
(1982) 149 CLR 337




(b)

Scope of obligation

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 All ER 724

* Wright v

Gasweld Pty Ltd

(1991) 22 NSWLR 317; (1991) 20 IPR 481 (NSW CA)

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;
(2007) 73 IPR 326

Prin
ters and Finishers Ltd v Holloway



7. BUSINESS REPUTATION


Reading from Prescribed Materials




SGB 2010: Ch 16, 17, 18.



DMW 2012: Ch 2



PBA 2012: Ch 12



RR 2012: Ch 16



A.

Passing off



(1)

Origins of passing off

Reddaway v Banham
[1896] AC 199





26

(2)

El
ements of the Action


*Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited
[1979] AC 731

*
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 reputatio
n 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?

Knott Investm
ents Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc

[2013] FCAFC 59


(d)

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


(e)

Is local business activity required?

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

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

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc

[2013] FCAFC 59


(f)

The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words


*McCain F
oods v County Fair Foods
(1981) RPC 69 (oven chips)

*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


(g)

Indicia of reputation


Name

Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN
(Pacific) Ltd

(2000) 104 FCR 61; (2000) 49 IPR 303

Pseudonym

Sykes v John Fairfax (“Pierpont”)

1977 1 NSWLR 415

Get
-
up

Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd

[2001] FCA 1228 (Conti J 3/9/2001)

Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden

Inc
(1990) 17 IRR 1 (“Jif lemon”)

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC
(2000) 52 IPR 419

(Thomas Shop)

Fictitious Character



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

(Gog
gomobil case)


Twentieth Century Fox v Lion Nathan

(Duff Beer)

(1996) 34 IPR 247


Hogan v Pacific Dunlop
(Crocodile Dundee
)
(1989) 14 IPR 398


27


Colours and Shapes

Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd

(2009) 84 IPR 12

(
Malt Balls
)

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC

(2000) 52 IPR 419


(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

*Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc
(1990) 17 IRR 1

Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Limited

[1960] Ch 263

REA Group Ltd v Real Estate 1 Ltd

[2013] FCA 559


Association, sponsorship, endorsement

Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited

[1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 (ballroom dancers)

Honey v Australian Airlines and House of tabor Inc

(Gary Honey athlete) 1990 18 IPR

185

Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation
(Kieren Perkins swimmer) 1996 36 IPR 46

McIlhenny v Blue Yonder Holdings

(1997) 39 IPR 187

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolates Pty Ltd (No.8)
[2008] FCA 470 (11 April 2008)


(b)

What is the effect of ‘in
tention 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’

* Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited

(1989) ATPR 40
-
948
(Crocodile Dundee
)

*
Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited

[1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576

(ballroom dancers)

*Hogan v Koala Dundee
(1988) 83 ALR 187; 12 IPR 508

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


(d)

Disclaim
ers

What effect does a disclaimer have?

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

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC

(2000) 52 IPR 419
;


(e)

Distinguish “misappropr
iation” from “misrepresentation”

ambush marketing


28

Nik
e

“London Calling” advertisment during London 2012 Olympic Games


(5)

3
rd

Requirement


Damage


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



B.

Related statutory acti
ons


(a)

Relevant statutes and provisions


Sections 52 and 53,
Trade Practices Act 1974
(Cth
)

(pre
-
1 January 2011)

Sections 18 and 29, Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2,
Competition and Consumer Act 2010

(Cth)
and
Fair Trading Act 1987
(NSW)




(b)

Misleading an
d deceptive conduct


the statutory action


* Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd
(1982) 149 CLR 191

Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation
(1990) 16 IPR 431 at 440 (Hill J)

*
Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd

(2000) 46 IPR 481


(i)

‘trade or commerce’


Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson

(1990) 169 CLR 594

Re Ku
-
Ring
-
Gai Co
-
operative Building Society

(No 12) Ltd

Argy v Blunt &Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd

(1990) 26 FCR 112


(ii)

Identify the ‘misrepresentat
ion’ said to arise




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



Does reputation need to be established in all cases?
Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng
[2007] FCA
1922 at [34].


(
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 consum
ers in the class would be likely to
be misled or deceived


Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd

(2000) 46 IPR 481



(iv)

Intention to deceive is not required



(vi)

Who made the representation


Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commiss
ion

[2013] HCA 1


(c)

An additional provision:

s53 TPA (
old law
);

s29 in Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
,

Sch 2 of CCA
(new law
)


(d)

Liability of individuals under TPA/CCA (ACL)


29


s75B TPA; s224 ACL

Houghton v Arms

(2006) 231 ALR 534

Sony Music Entertainment (Aust) Ltd v CEL Music Pty Ltd (in liq)
(2002) 54 IPR 289


(e)

Remedies

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

ACL
ss 233
-
236; see generally P
art 5
-
2 ‘Remedies’; CCA ss 87CB
-
87CI (proportionate liability)



8. TRADE MARKS


Required reading from Prescribed Materials




SGB 2010: Ch 19, 20



DMW 2012: Ch 3, 4



PBA: Part 4



RR 2012: Part 5


(1)

Origins of trade mark system

Bakers Marking Law 1266


(2)

R
egistration procedure


Brief overview of the registration process:




application



acceptance or rejection

by IP Australia



advertise acceptance



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


Attorney
-
General
(NSW)

v

Brewery Employees Union

(1908) 6 CLR 469


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

* 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

*
Chocolaterie Guylia
n NV v Registrar of Trade Marks
[2009] FCA 891 (18 August 2009)

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


(iv)

classes of designated goods and services

Nice Classification


45 classes


30


(4)

Other requirements incorporated wit
hin 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 (
‘Nerit’
)



defensive marks
-

s185 TMA


(ii)

Trade mark must distinguish goods or services




The notion of ‘cap
ability to distinguish’



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’:


Registrar of Trade Marks v W & G Du Cros Ltd

[1913] AC 624


*
Mark Foy’s Li
mited v Davies Coop & Co Limited

(1956) 95 CLR 190 (
‘Tub Happy’
)

*
Howard Auto Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Limited

(1946) 72 CLR 175 (
‘Rohoe’
)

Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks

(1964) 111 CLR 511 (
‘Michigan’
)

* Blount Inc v Registr
ar of Trade Marks

(1998) 40 IPR 498 (
‘Oregon’
)

Woolworths Ltd v BP Plc
(2006) FCAFC 132 (
colour green’
) (HC Special Leave application
dismissed)

Ocean Spray Cranberries v Registrar TM

(
Cranberry Classic
)
(2000) 47 IPR 579

Sports Wa
rehouse v Fry Consulting
(Tennis Warehouse
) (2010 186 FCR 519;
(2010) 87 IPR 300

(Kenny J)

Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd

(2004) 61 IPR 212
;

Modena Trading Pty Ltd v
Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd

[2013] FCAFC 110 (“oro” and “cinque stelle”


Molinari v Vittoria coffee)



(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 applicati
on


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 ser
vices

Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV
[2009] FCA 428 (30 April 2009)


31



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

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

Scotch Whisky Association v De Witt
[2007] FCA 1649 at [48]
-
[63]

McCorquodale v Masterton
(2004) 63 IPR 592 (Diana’s Legacy in Roses)

Big Country Developments Pty Ltd v TGI Friday's Inc

(20
00) IPR 513



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 T
MA (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



Shell Co (Aust)

Ltd v Rohm & Haas Co

(1949) 78 CLR 6
01



s58A


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



s59


applicant not intending to use mark

Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network

GP (
2010) 86 IPR 437

Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (Tastee Freez)
(1960)

103 CLR 391



s60



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

DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478



s61


mark consists of a false geograp
hical indication



s62


application is defective



s62A


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


Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2)

(2012) 94 IPR 551

[2012] FCA 81 (Dodds
-
Streeton J)

DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478


(7)

Ownership, rights, assignment and licensing


(i)

Who can make an application


s27 TMA

*
Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co

(1960) 103 CLR 391

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


32



s22


power of registered owner to deal with trade mark


(iii)

licensing


the ‘
authorised user’




ss6, 8


definition of ‘authorised use’



s26


powers of authorised user


E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan

(2010) 86 IPR 224




(8)

Infringement


(i)

Overview of infringement principles




key provision: s120 TMA



Three (3) categories of infr
ingement 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: infr
inging 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

* Coca Cola Distributors v

All Fect Distributors Pty Ltd

(1999) 47 IPR 481

*
Johnson & Johnson Australia v Sterling Pharmaceuticals

(1991) 21 IPR 1

*
Top Heavy v Killin

(1996) 34 IPR 282

Pepsico Australia Pty Limited

(t/a Frito
-
Lay) v

Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited
(1996) 33 IPR 161

K
oninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington

Products Australia Pty Ltd
(2000) 48 IPR 257

E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan

(2010) 86 IPR 224


(iii)

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


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 at [40]
-
[54]

Polo/Lauren Company LP v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd
[2008] FCA 49 (trial); [2008] FCAFC 196 (appeal)

Paul’s Retai
l Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited
[2012] FCAFC 130


(iv)

Tests of ‘substantially identical’ or ‘deceptively similar’


(a)

‘substantially identical’

* Shell Co of Aust
ralia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited

(1963) CLR 407


(b)

‘deceptively similar’


* Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited

(1963) CLR 407


33

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

Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co Ltd
(1994) 28 IPR 193

Polaroid Corporation v Sole N Pty Limited

[1981] 1 NSWLR 49

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited

(1954) 91 CLR 592

Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths

(199
9) 45 IPR 411 (
‘Woolworths Metro’
)

Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd
(2006) 69 IPR 243
;

(
‘Schmackos’
)

Beecham Group Plc v Colgate
-
Palmolive Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 838 (22 June 2005) (
‘Macleans’
)

Torpedoes Sportswear Pty L
td v Thorpedo Enterprises Pty Ltd
[2003] FCA 901 (27 August 2003)

Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty Ltd
(2004) 61 IPR 212
;

Pierre Fabre Dermo
-
Cosmetique v Senator Automation Pty Ltd
[2007] FCA 1391

(18 July 2007)


Closely related Services / Closely Related Goods

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited

(1954) 91 CLR 592

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

(
Woolworths Metro)

Caterpillar Loader Hire (Hold
ings) Pty Ltd v Caterpillar Tractor Co
(1983) 48 ALR 511



(9)

Defences to infringement




s122


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

M
cCormick & Company Inc v McCormick

(2000) 51 IPR 102 (honest concurrent
use)



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



(11)

Amendment and cancellation of regis
tration




Pt 8 Div 1


action by Registrar of Trade Marks



Pt 8 Div 2


action by Court



34


COMPULSORY ASSIGNMEN
T




In Intellectual Property, there is only
ONE ASSIGNMENT
.

This assignment is compulsory and
must be submitted by all students.
Students must
submit the assignment

by the due date.
A
pass mark is 50%. Refer to the
Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments

for
the assignment grading and assessment criteria. Students who fail to satisfy the compulsory
requirement will be notified thr
ough the
Results

screen on the Webcampus before the
examination period of their ineligibility to sit the examination in this subject.
The maximum
word limit for the assignment is 2000 words (inclusive of all footnotes but not bibliography)
.


The rules regarding the presentation of assignments and instructions on how to submit an assignment
are set out in the LEC
Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments
which can be
accessed on the LEC Webcampus. Please read this guide carefully
before completing and submitting
an assignment.


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


Compulsory
Assignment

Tuesday 14 January 2014

(Week 8)





ASSIGNMENT QUESTION



To obtain the Inte
llectual Property assignment questions for the Summer Session 2013
-
14,
please follow the instructions below:


1.

Register online with the LEC (see
page 23

of

the
Course Information Handbook

for detailed
instructions). Once you have registered, you will have a
ccess 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.