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

(a) General

• 
  ss36(1) and 101(1) CA
  
• 
  UNSW v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1
  
• 
  Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (2012) 95 IPR 29;
  
• 
  National Rugby League v Singtel Networks (2012) 201 FCR 147 (“Optus Now” case)
  

• 
  JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
  

• 
  Universal Music v Cooper [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006) (s112E does not preclude an infringement finding on the authorisation ground under s36 or s101)
  
• 
  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 Records 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
  

• 
  JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
  

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
  

(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)
  

(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
  

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
  
• 
  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 Engineering 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
  
• 
  Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
  

• 
  Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69
  
• 
  APRA v Pashalides 2000 (2000) 48 IPR 610
  
• 
  Allam v Aristocrat (2012) 95 IPR 242 (commercial scale)
  
• 
  Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited [2012] FCA 779
  
• 
  Bailey v Namol Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 147 (surreptitious)
  
• 
  Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No 3) [2014] FCA 909
  
• 
  Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Quality Kebab Wholesalers Pty Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 840
  

• 
  Dart v Décor (1993) 179 CLR 101
  
• 
  Bugatti GmbH v Shine Forever Men Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 171 (trade mark case)
  

• 
  Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 55 (design case)
  

• 
  Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] (2006) 70 IPR 172;
  
• 
  Perez v Fernandez (2012) 260 FCR 1
  

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

• 
  SGB: Ch 10
  
• 
  DMW 2012: Ch 10
  
• 
  PBA 2012: Ch 14
  
• 
  RR 2012: Ch 9
  

1. 
   Meaning of ‘design’
   

(ii) in relation to a product

• 
  Application for Type Font in name Microsoft (2007) 71 IPR 664
  
• 
  Re Wolanski’s Registered Design (1953) 88 CLR 278
  

(iv) ‘visual features’: s7 DA

• 
  Dart Industries v Décor (1989) 15 IPR 403
  
• 
  Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors – (1987) 9 IPR 353
  

• 
  Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
  

(vii) monopoly in particular appearance

• 
  Re Wolanski’s Registered Design (1953) 88 CLR 278
  
• 
  Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors – (1987) 9 IPR 353
  

2. 
   Novelty and distinctiveness
   

(ii) ‘prior art base’: s15(2) DA

• 
  prior public use of the design
  
• 
  prior publication in a document
  
  • 
    * J Rapee & Co Pty Ltd v Kas Cushions Pty Ltd (1990) 15 IPR 577)
    
• 
  disclosure in an earlier design application
  

• 
  ‘new’ – not identical compared to prior art base: s16(1) DA
  
• 
  ‘distinctive’ – not substantially similar in overall impression compared to prior art base: s16(2) and s19 DA
  
• 
  “informed user”
  
  • 
    Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (2008) 79 IPR 214
    
  • 
    LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd (2009) 80 IPR 105
    
• 
  statement of newness and distinctiveness
  
  • 
    Keller v LED Technologies (2010) 87 IPR 1
    
• 
  certain things to be disregarded: s17 DA
  
• 
  earlier use or publication of design as an artistic work: s18 DA
  

• 
  s43 DA and Reg 4.06 of Designs Regulations 2004
  

1. 
   Who is entitled to seek registration: 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)
  

2. 
   Ownership of registered design: s14 DA
   
3. 
   Exclusive rights of registered owners: s10 DA
   
4. 
   Assignment of interest in design: s11 DA
   
5. 
   Term of registration: s46 DA
   

1. 
   Who may bring proceedings: s73(1) DA
   
2. 
   When may proceedings be brought: s73(3) DA
   
3. 
   Where may proceedings be commenced: s73(2) DA
   
4. 
   Infringement by doing any exclusive rights of registered owners: s71 DA
   
5. 
   Designs ‘substantially similar in overall impression’: s19 DA
   
6. 
   Use of statement of newness and distinctiveness
   

• 
  Review 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)
  

7. 
   Will it be easier for a Court to apply the new Act test compared to old Act test (fraudulent or obvious imitation)?
   

• 
  Gram Engineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2013] FCA 508 (fencing panel)
  

8. 
   Counterclaim for rectification of Register: s74 DA
   

• 
  Foggin v Lacey (2003) 57 IPR 225 (compare infringing product to design not product)
  

1. 
   Remedies under s75(1) DA
   
2. 
   Defendant’s innocence and reasonable care: s75(2) DA
   
3. 
   Additional damages: s75(3) DA
   
4. 
   Importance of packaging: s75(4) DA
   
5. 
   Relief from unjustified threats: ss77-81 DA
   

1. 
   Relevant provisions: ss 74-77 CA
   
2. 
   What is the overlap problem?
   
3. 
   Definition of corresponding design: s74 CA
   
4. 
   Copyright protection where corresponding design registered: s75 CA
   
5. 
   Artistic works applied as unregistered industrial designs: s77 CA
   

1. 
   copyright subsists in an artistic work
   
2. 
   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
  

• 
  *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 reported at (2006) 70 IPR 1)
  

3. 
   products are sold, let for hire
   
4. 
   corresponding design has not been registered under Designs Act
   

6. 
   ‘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
  

7. 
   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’)
  
• 
  Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
  

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
  

• 
  SGB: Ch 11-14
  
• 
  DMW 2012: Ch 12 – 15
  
• 
  PBA 2012: Part 3
  
• 
  RR 2012: Part 4
  

1. 
   History
   

• 
  Venetian Statute
  
• 
  Darcy v Allin (1602) Moore KB 671
  
• 
  Statute of Monopolies 1624
  

2. 
   Establishment of the modern system
   
3. 
   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
  

1. 
   Requirements under s18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (PA)
   

(ii) Innovation patents

• 
  Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd (2009) 81 IPR 480;
  

• 
  manner of manufacture
  
• 
  novelty
  
• 
  inventive step
  
• 
  useful
  
• 
  not secretly used
  

2. 
   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
  
• 
  Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (skin disorder treatment)
  
• 
  D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35
  

• 
  * Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611 (keratin treatment 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
  
• 
  D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (breast cancer gene sequence)
  
• 
  Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (skin disorder treatment)
  

• 
  * International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218
  
• 
  * CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260
  
• 
  Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177
  

• 
  Rolls-Royce Ltd’s Application [1963] RPC 251
  
• 
  * Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 51 IPR 327
  
• 
  * Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62
  
• 
  * Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (method for calculating an index for using in financial investing)
  

3. 
   Novelty
   

• 
  s7(1) PA
  
• 
  dictionary definitions of: prior art information, prior art base, document, patent area
  

• 
  Hill v Evans (1862) 4 De GF & J 288 (1862) 45 ER 1195
  
• 
  * Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (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] 1466 FCA; (1998) 43 IPR 287 (Sundberg J’s propositions on anticipation)
  

• 
  * 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 Monarch Marketing Systems (1983) 1 IPR 431
  

• 
  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
  

• 
  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)
  

4. 
   Inventive step
   

• 
  ss7(2), 7(3) PA
  
• 
  Dictionary definitions of: prior art base, prior art information, patent area
  

• 
  * 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 202
  
• 
  AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] HCA 3
  

• 
  * Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980) 144 CLR 253
  
• 
  Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports (2006) 149 FCR 386
  

• 
  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) Act 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
  

5. 
   Useful/Utility
   

• 
  Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289
  

6. 
   Secret use
   

• 
  * Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 75 (Full Fed Ct)
  

7. 
   Internal objections: insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing
   

(ii) Ambiguity of claims

(iii) Fair basing

• 
  Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] 217 CLR 274
  
• 
  AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99
  
• 
  “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) of English Patents Act
  
• 
  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
  
• 
  claim or claims must be clear and succinct and [fairly based on the matter described] supported by matter disclosed in the specification
  

8. 
   Other grounds of invalidity
   

• 
  s138 PA
  
• 
  s18(2) PA – human beings
  
• 
  Re Woo-Suk Hwang [2004] AIPC 92-031
  
• 
  Fertilitescentrum AB and Luminis Pty Ltd (2004) 62 IPR 420
  
• 
  D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics
  

1. 
   The role of the patent attorney: ss200, 201 PA
   
2. 
   The application process
   

1. 
   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
  

2. 
   Assignment of interest in patent: s14 PA
   
3. 
   Term of grant: s67 (standard patent), s68 (innovation patent)
   
4. 
   Register: s187
   
5. 
   Compulsory licences: s133
   
6. 
   Crown Use: s163
   

1. 
   Relevant statutory provisions
   

(ii) When may proceedings be brought: s120(4) PA

(iii) Where may proceedings be commenced: s120(1) PA

(iv) Counterclaim for revocation of patent: s121 PA

(v) Infringement by doing any of the patentee ‘exploitation’ rights: s13 PA, Dictionary definition of ‘exploit'

2. 
   How is infringement determined?
   

• 
  *Décor Corporation v Dart Industries (1988) 13 IPR 385
  
• 
  Kinabulu Invstments v Barron and Rawson [2008] FCAFC 178 at [44] –[45]
  

• 
  Catnic Components v Hill and Smith [1982] RPC 183; [1978] FSR 405
  

• 
  Dunlop Pneumatic Typre v David Moseley (1904) 21 RPC 274
  
• 
  Bedford Industries v Pinefair (1999) 42 IPR 330
  

• 
  Windsurfting International v Petit (1984) 2 NSWLR 196
  

3. 
   Contributory infringement: s117 PA
   

• 
  Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205
  
• 
  Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co (2000) 46 IPR 553
  
• 
  Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 78 IPR 225
  

4. 
   Defences to infringement: s118, s119, s119A, 119B, 119C PA
   

• 
  Merck KGAA v Integra Life Sciences Limited (June 2005) US Supreme Court (defence to patent infringement in US: research exemption)
  
• 
  “Raising the Bar” defences – experimental purposes, obtaining regulatory approval
  

1. 
   Remedies under s122 PA
   
2. 
   Innocent infringement: s123(1) PA
   
3. 
   Importance of packaging: s123(2) PA
   
4. 
   Relief from unjustified threats: s128 PA
   

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 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
  

• 
  SGB: Ch 3, 4
  
• 
  DMW 2012: Ch 11
  
• 
  PBA: Ch 15
  
• 
  RR 2012: Ch 11
  

1. 
   Protection of ideas and information
   
2. 
   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
  

3. 
   Jurisdictional basis for breach of confidence action
   
4. 
   Contractual and equitable bases can co-exist: Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation [2010] FCAFC 21; (2010) 265 ALR 281
   

1. 
   Origins and elements of the equitable action
   

• 
  Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 47 ER 1302
  
• 
  Personal – Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302
  
• 
  Government – Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39
  

• 
  * 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
  

• 
  * Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291
  

• 
  * Moorgate Tobacco 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)
  

• 
  * 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)
  
• 
  TF Industrial 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 Strategic Management & Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (2012) 295 ALR 348
  

• 
  Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291
  

• 
  Wheatley v Bell [1982] 2 NSWLR 544
  
• 
  Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469
  

2. 
   Defences – the iniquity rule and public interest defence
   

• 
  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
  

• 
  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)
  

• 
  * 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 ACSR 401; [2001] NSWSC 832; Appeal dismissed in [2001] NSWCA 343 (11/10/01)
  

3. 
   Remedies
   

(ii) delivery up

(iii) constructive trust

• 
  LAC Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR 4^th 14; (1989) 16 IPR 27
  

(v) quantum meruit

(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
  
• 
  Notion of the springboard: Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd [1967] RPC 375
  

1. 
   Co-existence of equity and contract principles: Optus Networks Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2010] FCAFC 21
   
2. 
   Contractual duties: express or implied
   

(ii) 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 Rail Authority NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
  

3. 
   Scope of obligation
   

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

4. 
   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
  
• 
  Printers and Finishers Ltd v Holloway
  

• 
  SGB: Ch 16, 17, 18.
  
• 
  DMW 2012: Ch 2
  
• 
  PBA 2012: Ch 12
  
• 
  RR 2012: Ch 16
  

• 
  Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199
  

• 
  *Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731
  
• 
  *Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193
  

1. 
   What commercial activities are covered?
   
2. 
   How is reputation fixed in the minds of consumers?
   

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

3. 
   How is reputation proved?
   

• 
  Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59
  

4. 
   Need for the public to associate product/service with a particular ‘source’
   
5. 
   Is local business activity required?
   

• 
  * Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193
  
• 
  BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363
  
• 
  Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59
  

6. 
   The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words
   

• 
  *McCain Foods 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
  
• 
  Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 87
  

7. 
   Indicia of reputation
   

• 
  Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN (Pacific) Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 61; (2000) 49 IPR 303
  

• 
  Sykes v John Fairfax (“Pierpont”) 1977 1 NSWLR 415
  

• 
  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)
  

• 
  Telstra Corporation Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd (2003) 57 IPR 453 (Goggomobil case)
  
• 
  Twentieth Century Fox v Lion Nathan (Duff Beer) (1996) 34 IPR 247
  
• 
  Hogan v Pacific Dunlop (Crocodile Dundee) (1989) 14 IPR 398
  

(v) 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
  

1. 
   Types of misrepresentation
   

• 
  *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
  
• 
  Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd v Tabellz Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1019
  
• 
  Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 87
  

• 
  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)
  
• 
  Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 87
  

2. 
   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
  

3. 
   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)
  

4. 
   Disclaimers
   

• 
  *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;
  
• 
  Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 87
  

5. 
   Distinguish “misappropriation” from “misrepresentation”
   

• 
  ambush marketing: Nike “London Calling” advertisement during London 2012 Olympic Games
  

• 
  Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354
  
• 
  Passing off trumps trademark: CI JI Family Pty Limited v National Australian Nappies (NAN) Pty Limited [2014] FCA 79
  

• 
  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)
  

• 
  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
  
• 
  Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd v Tabellz Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1019 (steel roof sheets)
  

• 
  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
  

• 
  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].
  

• 
  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
  
• 
  Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481
  

• 
  Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1
  

• 
  s53 TPA (old law);
  
• 
  s29 in Australian Consumer Law (ACL), Sch 2 of CCA (new law)
  

• 
  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
  

• 
  Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 80, 82, 87, 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)
  
• 
  ACL ss 233-236; see generally Part 5-2 ‘Remedies’; CCA ss 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)
  

• 
  SGB: Ch 19, 20
  
• 
  DMW 2012: Ch 3, 4
  
• 
  PBA: Part 4
  
• 
  RR 2012: Part 5
  

• 
  Bakers Marking Law 1266
  

• 
  application
  
• 
  acceptance or rejection by IP Australia
  
• 
  advertise acceptance
  
• 
  opposition
  
• 
  registration
  

1. 
   Definition of trade mark
   

• 
  Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“TMA”): s17 – ‘trade mark’; s6 – ‘sign’
  

2. 
   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 Guylian NV v Registrar of Trade Marks [2009] FCA 891 (18 August 2009)
  
• 
  Baird J, “The Registrability of Functional Shape Marks” (2002) 13 AIPJ 218
  

3. 
   Classes of designated goods and services
   

• 
  Nice Classification – 45 classes
  

1. 
   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
  

2. 
   Trade mark must distinguish goods or services
   

(ii) benefits of invented words, coined expressions, concocted shapes

(iii) effect of s41 TMA: ways that a trade mark can be ‘capable of distinguishing’:

• 
  s41(3) – trade mark is ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’
  
• 
  s41(5) – trade mark is to some extent ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’
  
• 
  s41(6) – trade mark is not ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’ but becomes so through ‘use’
  

• 
  Registrar of Trade Marks v W & G Du Cros Ltd [1913] AC 624
  
• 
  *Mark Foy’s Limited 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 Registrar 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 Warehouse 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 (HC pending – Full Federal Court [2013] FCAFC 110 (foreign words “oro” and “cinque stelle” – Molinari v Vittoria coffee)
  
• 
  Mastronardi Produce Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1021 (Zima)
  

3. 
   Dealt with in course of trade
   

• 
  Re New York Yacht Club Application
  

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

1. 
   s39 – mark contains certain signs (ie. prescribed signs)
   
2. 
   s40 – mark cannot be represented graphically
   
3. 
   s41 – mark does not distinguish applicant’s goods and services
   

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

4. 
   s42 – mark is scandalous or contrary to law
   
5. 
   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)
  
• 
  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 (2000) IPR 513
  

6. 
   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
  

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

1. 
   s57 - same grounds as for rejection of application under Part 4 Div 2, except s40
   
2. 
   s58 – applicant not owner of mark
   

• 
  Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Rohm & Haas Co (1949) 78 CLR 601
  

3. 
   s58A – opponent’s earlier use of similar trade mark (a new ground from 23/10/06))
   
4. 
   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
  

5. 
   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
  

6. 
   s61 – mark consists of a false geographical indication
   
7. 
   s62 – application is defective
   
8. 
   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
  

1. 
   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
  

2. 
   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
  

3. 
   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
  

1. 
   Overview of infringement principles
   

(ii) Categories of infringement under s120 TMA:

• 
  s120(1): infringing use in relation to registered goods or services
  
• 
  s120(2): infringing use in relation to ‘same description’ or closely related goods or services
  
• 
  s120(3): infringement of well-known trade marks
  

2. 
   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
  
• 
  Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 IPR 257
  
• 
  E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (2010) 86 IPR 224
  

3. 
   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 Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130
  

4. 
   Tests of ‘substantially identical’ or ‘deceptively similar’
   

• 
  * Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407
  

• 
  * Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407
  
• 
  * 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 (1999) 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 Ltd 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)
  

5. 
   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 (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Caterpillar Tractor Co (1983) 48 ALR 511
  

1. 
   s122 – use in ‘good faith’ and other exemptions (including honest concurrent use; s122(1)(f))
   
2. 
   McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102 (honest concurrent use)
   
3. 
   s124 – prior and continuous use
   

1. 
   s20(2) – registered owner can commence proceedings
   
2. 
   s26(1)(b) – authorised user entitled to commence proceedings in certain circumstances
   
3. 
   s125 – where relief can be sought
   
4. 
   s126 – relief that can be claimed: injunction, account of profits or damages
   
5. 
   s127 – special case where plaintiff not entitled to damages
   
6. 
   Pt 14 TMA – criminal procedures and penalties for counterfeiting
   
7. 
   s129 – groundless threats
   

1. 
   Pt 8 Div 1 – action by Registrar of Trade Marks
   
2. 
   Pt 8 Div 2 – action by Court