Law extension committee

texts and materials

Course Materials

• 
  Supplementary Materials in Intellectual Property (available via the link to the Law Library on the Course Materials section of the LEC Webcampus)
  
• 
  Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments (available on the LEC Webcampus)
  

Prescribed Materials

• 
  McKeough, Stewart & Griffith, Intellectual Property in Australia, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004 (“MSG 2004”).
  
• 
  Butterworths Intellectual Property Collection 2005, LexisNexis Butterworths.
  

Reference Materials
Students should be aware that the books set out below may contain material which is out of date.
Australian texts

• 
  McKeough, Bowrey, & Griffiths, Intellectual Property: Commentary & Materials, 3rd ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2002 (“MBG 2002”).
  
• 
  Ricketson and Richardson, Intellectual Property: Cases Materials and Commentary, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005 (“RR 2005”).
  

• 
  Ricketson, The Law of Intellectual Property, Thomson Lawbook, 1999.
  
• 
  Shanahan, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, 3rd ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2003.
  
• 
  Phillips, Protecting Designs Law and Litigation, Thomson Lawbook, 1994.
  
• 
  Trade Mark Law in Australia, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2000.
  
• 
  Van Caenegem, Intellectual Property, LexisNexis Butterworths Tutorial Series, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2001.
  

United Kingdom texts

• 
  Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 4th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000.
  
• 
  Skone James, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 13th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000, Supplement 2002.
  

Loose leaf services

• 
  CCH, Australian Industrial and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs, Patents, Trade Marks, Legislation and Cases
  
• 
  Lahore, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis Butterworths
  
• 
  Garnsey, Dwyer, Duffy and Covell, Intellectual Property in Australia: Patents and Trade Marks, LexisNexis Butterworths
  

Periodicals

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

PRESCRIBED TOPICS AND COURSE OUTLINE

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

1. INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Required from Prescribed Materials

• 
  MSG 2004: Ch 1 pp1-14.
  

2. COPYRIGHT
Reading from Prescribed Materials

• 
  MSG 2004: Ch 5, 6, 7 and 8.
  

(1) What is copyright?

• 
  Definitions of copyright
  
• 
  Copyright as property – s196 Copyright Act (“CA”)
  

Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154 (MBG 2002 at pp29-31)

• 
  Fundamental distinction – ‘form of expression’ vs ‘ideas and information’
  

*Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106 (MBG 2002 at pp41-43)

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

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

• 
  International aspects of copyright protection
  

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Universal Copyright Convention (also known as the ‘Rome Convention’)

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

(2) Origin and Rationale of Copyright
A. History

• 
  Statute of Anne 1709
  
• 
  Donaldson v Beckett (1774) 98 ER 257
  
  
  

B. Moral and economic justifications

(3) The subsistence of copyright
The 4 requirements for copyright protection:

1. 
   Created by a ‘qualified person’ – ss32(4), 84, 184 CA.
   

2. 
   Subject matter – ‘works’ and ‘subject matter other than works’ – ss10, 32, 89-92 CA.
   

3. 
   Material form – ss10, 22 CA.
   

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

*Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503 (MBG 2002 at pp48-50).

4. 
   Originality – s32 CA.
   

*University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 (MBG 2002 at p56)

*Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213 (MBG 2002 at 59)

Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991)

*Telstra Corporation v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd (2001) 51 IPR 257 (Full Fed Ct; HC Special Leave Application refused on 20/06/03)

(4) Works
4 types of ‘works’ under Part II CA.
(a) Literary
* Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] RPC 69

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

* Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Limited [1964] 1 WLR 273

* Autodesk v Dyason (1991) 22 IPR 163

Waterlow Publishers v Rose (1990) 17 IPR 493

* Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171

Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited (1999) 45 IPR 353

AVRA v Warners (DVD case) (2002) 53 IPR 242

* Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Ltd [1940] AC 112
(b) Dramatic

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

* Zeccola v Universal City Studios (1982) 46 ALR 189

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53 and (2001) 50 IPR 292

Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 1
(c) Musical
(d) Artistic

(i) photographs

(ii) architectural plans

(iii) artistic craftsmanship

* Cuisenaire v Reed (1963) VR 719

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

* Coogi Australia Pty Limited v Hysport International Pty Limited (1998) 41 IPR 593

* Merlet v Mothercare plc (1984) 2 IPR 456

* George Henscher v Restawhile Upholstery (Lanes) Limited (1975) RPC 31

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

* 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 (1999) 46 IPR 309

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

(5) Subject Matter other than Works
(a) Cinematograph films
Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Limited v Pacific Gaming Pty Limited (2001) 50 IPR 29

Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 462
(b) Sound recordings
CBS Records Australia Limited v Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Limited (1987) 9 IPR 440
(c) Published editions
Nationwide News Pty Limited v Copyright Agency Limited (1996) 134 IPR 53
(d) Broadcasts
TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (2002) 55 IPR 112

(6) Ownership
(a) Works – author
ss10(1)”work of joint authorship”, 35(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6) CA.
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

Donoghue v Allied Newspapers [1938] Ch 106

Redrock Holdings Pty Limited v Hinkley (2001) 50 IPR 565

Prior v Landsdowne Press (1975) 12 ALR 685

Rexlynne Nominees Pty Limited v Last Frontier Picture Co Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 368

Community ownership: Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 157 ALR 193 (MBG 2002 at pp129-138).

(b) Other subject matter – maker
s22 CA.

(7) Exclusive Rights (s31)
(a) Reproduction
Francis Day & Hunter v Bron (1963) Ch 587

Plix Products v Frank M Winstone (1984) 3 IPR 390

King Features v Kleeman (Popeye Case) 1941 AC 417

Microsoft Corporation v Business Boost Pty Limited (2001) 49 IPR 573

AVRA v Warners (DVD case) 2002 53 IPR 242

Pacific Gaming Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1636 (26/11/01)
(b) Publication
Avel Pty Limited v Multicoin Amusements Pty Limited (1990) 171 CLR 88
(c) Public Performance
APRA v Canterbury Bankstown Leagues Club (1964) 5 FLR 415

APRA v Tolbush (1985) 7 IPR 160

APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157

Telstra Corporation Limited v APRA (1997) 191 CLR 140
(d) Adaptation
(e) Rental Rights

AVRA v Warners (2002) 53 IPR 242

(8) Moral Rights
Reading:

• 
  MBG 2002 at pp34-41
  
• 
  MSG 2004 at 141-146
  

Schott Musik v Colossal Records (1996) 36 IPR 267

Gilliam v American Broadcasting Co (1976) 538 F 2d 14

Snow v Eaton Centre (1982) 70 CPR 105

Carter v Hemsley Spear Inc In 861 F Supp 303 SDNY 1994

Tidy v Trustees of Natural History Museum (1995) 39 IPR 501

Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301
Loughlan, P “The right of integrity: What is in that word honour? What is in that word reputation” (2001) 12 AIPJ 189
Rimmer “Shine, Copyright Law and Film” (2001) AIPJ 129

(9) Proprietary Rights
(a) Assignments 196(1), 197
Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53
(b) Licensing 196(2), 197

1. 
   exclusive licence (s119)
   
2. 
   implied licence
   

NG v Clyde Securities [1976] 1 NSWLR 443

Beck v Montana (1963) 80 WN NSW 1578

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

(10) Statutory Licences
Reading:

• 
  MBG 2002 at pp159-165
  
• 
  MSG 2004 at pp206-210
  

(a) Music
section 54-64 (music recordings)

section 108-109 (music broadcast/public perform)

(b) Educational copying
Part VA Copyright Act

Screenrights (http://www.screen.org.au)

(c) Cable retransmission
(d) Rental rights
(e) Blank Tape Levy

Australian Tape Manufacturers v The Commonwealth

(f) As a remedy?

A&M Records v Napster Inc 50 IPR 232 (US case)

(11) Collecting Societies
Reading:

• 
  MBG 2002 at pp159-165
  
• 
  MSG 2004 at pp206-210
  

Other references:

Simpson, S “Review of Australian Collecting Societies – A Report to the Minister of Communications and Minister for Justice” July 1995

APRA-Australasian Performing Rights Association
http://www.apra.com.au

CAL - Copyright Agency Limited

http://www.copyright.com.au

PPCA - Photographic Performance Company of Australia Limited

http://www.ppca.com.au

AMCOS-Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society

http://www.apra.com.au

Vi$copy
http://www.viscopy.com.au

Screenrights
http://www.screen.org

(12) Infringement (s36)
(a) Need to prove copying
*Corelli v Gray (1913) 29 TLR 570

King Features Syndicate Inc v O & E Kleeman Ltd [1941] AC 417

*Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 (MBG 2002 at p185)

Kockums v The Commonwealth [2001] FCA 398

Dixon Projects Pty Ltd v Hallmark Homes Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1206 (unreported Cooper J 27/09/2002)
(b) Substantiality (s14)
(i) works
* Hawkes 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

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

(ii) other subject matter

TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (No.2) [2005] FCAFC 53 (26 May 2005)

100. 
     Infringement of right to ‘perform in public’
     

*APRA v Tolbush (1985) 7 IPR 160

*APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157

*Rank Films v Dodds (1983) 2 IPR 113
(d) Interim copies
Autocaps (Australia) Pty Limited v Prokit Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 339

(13) Authorisation
* UNSW v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1

CBS Sons v Amstrad Consumer Electronics

* APRA v Jain (1990) 18 IPR 663

A&M Records v Napster Inc 50 IPR 232 (US case)

Zomba Production Music (Australia) v Roadhouse Productions (2001) AIPC ¦91-756

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

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

Universal Music v Cooper [2005] FCA 972 (14 July 2005)

(14) Secondary Infringement

1. 
   Importing
   
2. 
   Dealing
   
3. 
   Parallel importing
   

Senate Committee Report on Parallel Importation May 2001

ACCC Parallel Importation Report March 1999

Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 1999

ACCC v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800

(15) Circumvention Devices (section 116A)
Universal City Studios Inc v Corley (2nd Circ Appeals 28/11/01)

* Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens (2002) 55 IPR 497 (note: HC appeal has been heard, judgment has been reserved).

Coco “Anti-circumvention: The New Song and Dance Routine” 2001 12 AIPJ 199

Webber, D “Case Note - PlayStation Held not to Include a Technical Protection Measure - Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens” (2002) 13(4) AIPJ 228

Gethin, S “Sony v Stevens - Are Technological Protection Measures Illusory?” (2002) 15(5) IPLB 61

(16) Defences
(a) Criticism or review, research and study, reporting news (s40, 41, 42, 43)
* TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (“The Panel”) 50 IPR 335 (trial); (2002) 55 IPR 112 (Full Court)

* De Garis v Nevill Jeffrees Pty Limited (1990) 18 IPR 292
(b) Operation of computers (s47AB – 47F)
EU Directive on Copyright Harmonisation 2001
(c) Incidental inclusion of artistic works

(17) Remedies
Reading:

• 
  RR 1998 at pp31-48
  

(a) Damages – Compensatory Damages (s115(2))
Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69

Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301
(b) Damages – Flagrancy Damages (s115(4))
APRA v Pashalides 2000 (2000) 48 IPR 610

(c) Account of Profits (s115(2), (115(3))
If innocent infringer, only entitled to account of profits not damages
(d) Injunction (s115(2))
Microsoft Corporation v Blanch [2002] FCA 895 (unreported Branson J 18/07/2002)

(18) Criminal Proceedings (s132)
Ly v Jenkins (2002) 53 IPR 317

(19) Duration
Eldred v Ashcroft (US Supreme Court 19/02/03)

Further Reading on copyright:

• 
  Lahore, JC, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis Butterworths Looseleaf.
  
• 
  Ricketson, S and Richardson, M, Law of Intellectual Property – Copyright, Designs, Confidential Information, Thomson Lawbook Looseleaf.
  
• 
  Fitzgerald A and Cifuentes, Going Digital, Prospect Media, 1999.
  
• 
  Laddie, Prescott, Vitoria and Lane, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 3rd edition, Butterworths, London, 2000.
  
• 
  Copinger & Skone, James on Copyright, 14th edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1998.
  
• 
  Costello, R., "The New Digital Copyright Law In The Media, Entertainment and Communications Industries” (2001) 12 AIPJ 19.
  
• 
  Evenden, R “Copyright Protection of Data and Databases in Australia” Computers and The Law June 2001 Number 44, Page 27.
  
• 
  Voon, R “Revising Computer Programs Copyright in Australia: Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited" (2000) 11 AIPJ 161.
  

3. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Required reading

• 
  MBG 2002: ch 11
  
• 
  MSG 2004: ch 10
  

Special Note: Students should be aware that the Designs Act 1906 (Cth) was replaced by the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) which commenced on 17 June 2004. Accordingly, many existing text books only deal with the old Act and so care should be taken when consulting text books. However, MBG Ch 11 provides a comparison between the operation of the old 1906 Act and what was at the time of publishing expected to be the form of the new 2003 Act. Whilst MBG Ch 11 may not accurately set out the provisions of the new Act, this Chapter will be the most useful focal point for course readings on the topic of Industrial Designs. Students should ensure that they have a copy of the new Act for the purpose of this course. The course outline below has been modified to deal with the old and the new Act, to assist in comparisons as practitioners now have to get used to the changes in the legislation.
Note that MSG 2004 ch 10 and RR 2005 ch 9 are up-to-date and provide commentary on the 2003 Act.
Whilst our focus on this course is the 2003 Act, given that many cases will continue to be heard under the 1906 Act set out below is a ‘before and after’ analysis of the respective legislation.

(1) Requirements for registration
1906 Act
Designs Act 1906, ss 4, 17, 17A, 18

Designs Regulations 1982, reg 11

Copyright Regulations 1969, reg 17

2003 Act: ss5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
(a) Design
1906 Act
Wolanski’s Design (1953) 88 CLR 278

Malleys v J W Tomlin (1961) 180 CLR 120

Dalgety Australia Operations v Seeley Nominees (1985) 79 FLR 457
2003 Act: ss5, 6, 7, 8.
(b) Applicable to an article
Old Act
Tefex v Bowler (1981) 60 FLR 314
New Act: “in relation to a product” – s5 (“design”), s6.
(c) New or original
Old Act
J Rapee and Co v Kas Cushions (1990) 15 IPR 577

Richsell v Khoury (1995) 32 IPR 289

Minquip Pty Ltd v Mining Supplies Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1378; (2001) 52 IPR 513

New Act: “new and distinctive” – ss15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
(d) Industrially applied
Old Act
Press-Form v Henderson’s (1993) 40 FCR 274
New Act: s18(3).
(2) Ownership
Old Act
Designs Act 1906, ss 4, 19, 20, 25
New Act: ss13, 14.
(3) Infringement
Old Act
Designs Act 1906, ss 21, 27A, 28, 30,.32, 32B, 39

Firmagroup Australia v Byrne and Davidson Doors (Vic) (1987) 180 CLR 483

Dart Industries v The Decor Corp (1989) 15 IPR 403

Turbo Tek Enterprises v Sperling Enterprises (1989) 23 FCR 331

Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1991) 32 FCR 491

Lift Verkaufsgerate v Fischer Plastics (1993) 27 IPR 187

Oakley v Oslu Import & Export Pty Limited [2000] FCA 700; (2000) 48 IPR 32

Conrol Pty Ltd v Meco McCallums Pty Ltd (1997) 80 FCA 264

Gerard Industries v Auswide Import Export (1998) 40 IPR 119

McCallum & Co Pty Ltd v Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 488; (2001) 52 IPR 550 (appeal dismissed in Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v McCallum & Co Pty Ltd [2001 FCA 1838]; (2001) 53 IPR 400

Foggin v Lacey [2003] FCAFC 147 (30 June 2003)

New Act: Ch 6 – ss70-76.
(4) Design and copyright overlap
Copyright Act, ss 74-77

Hutchence v South Seas Bubble Co (1986) 6 IPR 473

Warman International v Envirotech Australia (1986) 11 FCR 478

Hosokawa Micron International v Fortune (1990) 26 FCR 393

Ametex Fabrics v C and F Fabrics (1992) 38 FCR 415

Amalgamated Mining Services v Warman International (1992) 24 IPR 461

Shacklady v Atkins (1994) 30 IPR 387

Swarbrick v Burge [2003] FCA 1176

Muscat v Le [2003] FCA 1540

Sheldon v Metrokane [2004] FCA 19 (23/01/04)


4. CIRCUIT LAYOUTS ACT 1989
Reading:

• 
  MBG 2002 at pp85-87
  

Circuit Layouts Act 1989, ss 5, 7-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27

Avel v Wells (1992) 36 FCR 340

Nintendo Co v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134


5. PATENTS
Required reading

• 
  MBG 2002 ch7-10
  
• 
  MSG 2004 ch 11-14
  

(1) Requirements for patentability
Patents Act 1990, ss 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, 40, 43, 51, 59, 97, 101; sch 1: “invention”, prior art base”, “prior art information”, innovation patents.

Patent Regulations, reg 2.2

(a) Patentable invention
N V Phillips Gloeilamopenfabrieken v Mirabella International (1995) 183 CLR 655

Advanced Building Systems v Ramset Fasteners (1998) 194 CLR 171
(b) Manner of manufacture
(i) vendible product
* National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252
(ii) method of medical treatment
* Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611

* Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare (1994) 50 FCR 1

* Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding (1998) 41 IPR 467

* Bristol-Myers Squibb v F H Faulding & Co Limited [2000] FCA 316; (2000) 97 FCR 524
(iii) computer software
* International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218

* CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260

(iv) business methods

* Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 1100

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

(c) Novelty
* Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 12 ALJR 169

HPM Industries v Gerard Industries (1957) 98 CLR 424

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

* Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering (1990) 16 IPR 545

* MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son [1998] 1466 FCA; (1998) 43 IPR 287.

Longworth v Emerton (1951) 83 CLR 539
(d) Inventive step
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286

* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980) 144 CLR 253

* Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1993) 25 IPR 173

Kimberley-Clark Australia v Arico Trading International (2001) 50 IPR 513

* Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited [2000] FCA 1689; (2000) 51 IPR 531
(e) Distinction between novelty and inventive step
* R D Werner v Bailey Aluminium Products (1989) 25 FCR 565
(f) Usefulness
* Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289
(g) Insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing
* Samuel Taylor v SA Brush Co (1950) 83 CLR 616

* Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1991) 32 FCR 491

* Leonardis v Sartas No 1 (1996) 67 FCR 126

(2) Role of Patent Attorney
Patents Act 1990, ss 200, 201

(3) Ownership and exploitation of rights

(4) Infringement
Patents Act 1990, ss 13, 14, 117, 120-122, 138; sch 1: “exploit”

* Clark v Adie (1877) 2 App Cas 315

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

* Rodi and Weinenberger v Henry Showell [1969] RPC 367

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

* Populin v H B Nominees (1982) 59 FLR 37

E Street Enterprises v CPS Housewares (1996) 36 IPR 431

The Nesbit Evans Group Australia v Impro (1997) 39 IPR 56

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

Great Western Pty Limited v Grove Hill Pty Limited [2001] FCA 423

* ICI Chemicals & Polymers v Lubrizol (2000) 106 FCR 214

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

(5) Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994
Sun World Inc v Registrar of Plant Variety Rights (1997) 75 FCR 528

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


6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Reading from Prescribed Materials:

• 
  MSG 2004: ch 3, 4.
  

(1) Elements of action
(a) Elements
* Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) 65 RPC 203

* Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) [1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587

* Seager v Copydex [1967] 2 All ER 415

* Falconer v Australian Broadcasting Corp [1992] 1 VR 662

Wigginton v Brisbane TV (1993) 25 IPR 58

Abbasi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1274

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1024

Industrial Rollformers Pty Ltd v Ingersoll-Rand (Australia) Ltd [2001] NSWCA 111; (2001) Aust Contract R 90-129

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).

Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd [2001] VSCA 248

Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Marsmark Auto Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 516
(b) Employees
Ansell Rubber Co v Allied Rubber Industries [1967] VR 37

* Faccenda Chicken v Fowler [1985] 1 A11 ER 724

* ANI Corporation v Celtite Australia (1990) 19 IPR 506

Candle Australia Ltd v Keeley [1999] VSC 305

Mackintosh International College Pty Ltd v Solao [2001] QSC 443

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

Uniflex (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hanneybel [2001] WASC 138

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

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

(c) Third parties
* Wheatley v Bell [1982] 2 NSWLR 544

Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] 2 All ER 620

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

RGC Mineral Sands Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 115

Halliday & Nicholas Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Corsiatto [2001] NSWCA 188; (2001) 11 ANZ Ins Cas 61-505

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

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 885

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

Mullins v Rothschild (2001) 120 A Crim R 574; [2001] TASSC 76

R v P [2001] NSWCA 473

(2) Public interest defence
* Castrol Australia v Emtech Associates (1980) 51 FLR 184

* Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39

* A-G (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia (1987) 10 NSWLR 86; (1988) 165 CLR 30

* Westpac Banking Corp v John Fairfax Group (1991) 19 IPR 513

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

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

Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 370

Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 385

New Zealand Post Ltd v Prebble [2001] NZLR 360; [NZ HCt 23/02/2001]

Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 908

(3) Remedies
* Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349

* Talbot v General Television Corp (No 2) [1980] VR 242

Cashman v Ackland [2001] NSWSC 863

Coulter v Nunan [2001] VSC 112


7. BUSINESS REPUTATION
Reading from Prescribed Materials

• 
  MSG 2004: Ch 16, 17, 18.
  

A. Passing off

(1) Policy
Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199

ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193

Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481

Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Hogan 1989 14 IPR 398

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd (No 2) 1984 156 CLR 414

ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199 per Gummow and Haynes JJ

(2) Elements 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

*Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v Borden Inc [1991] WLR 491

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

(3) 1^st Requirement - Reputation
(a) What commercial activities are covered
(b) How is reputation fixed in the minds of consumers
*Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851
(c) The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words
*McCain Foods v County Fair Foods (1981) RPC 69

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

BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363
(d) How is reputation proved
(e) Need for the public to associate product/service with a particular ‘source’
Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731
(f) Reputation without business activity
BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363

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

7. 
   What is the effect of ‘intention to deceive’
   

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

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

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851
(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
(b) Character merchandising

Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited (1989) ATPR 40-948

*Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576

*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).

(c) Disclaimers

5. 
   3^rd Requirement – Damage
   

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

B. Trade Practices Act 1974, Fair Trading Act 1987
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 4, 5, 52, 53, 80, 82, 87

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), ss 42, 43
(a) Trade and commerce
* Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594

Plimer v Roberts (1997) 80 FCR 303
(b) Misleading or deceptive conduct: s52
TGI Friday’s Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc [1999] FCA 304; (1999) 45 IPR 43.

Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 61.
(i) relevant public
* Taco Company of Australia v Taco Bell (1982) 42 ALR 177

Targetts v Target Australia (1993) 26 IPR 51

Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (1982) 149 CLR 191
(ii) objective test
* Hornsby Building Information Centre v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216

Sydney Markets Ltd v Sydney Flower Market Pty. Ltd. [2002] FCA 124
(iii) causation
McWilliams Wines v McDonald’s System of Australia (1980) 49 FLR 455
(iv) comparative advertising
Sterling Winthrop v Boots Co (Aust) (1995) 32 IPR 361

Boots Co (Aust) v Smithkline Beecham Healthcare (1996) 33 IPR 266
(v) role of fraud/labelling/intention
(c) Remedies
Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 80, 82, 87, 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)

(d) Overlap with other categories of protection
Sony Music Australia and Michael Jackson v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 27 IPR 649
(e) Role of survey evidence
Interlego v Croner Trading (1992) 39 FCR 348
(f) False or misleading representations
Weitmann v Katies (1977) 29 FLR 337

* Telstra Corporation Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited [2003] FCA 786 (1 August 2003)

* Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v Next Publishing Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 625 (18 May 2005)

8. TRADE MARKS
Required reading from Prescribed Materials

• 
  MSG 204, Ch 19, 20
  

(1) Policy
Attorney General v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (1908) 6 CLR 469

Top Heavy Pty Limited v Killin 1996 34 IPR 282

Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481

(2) Procedure
application

acceptance or rejection (Pt 4 Div 2)

opposition (Pt 5 Div 2)

registration

cancel / amend / limit (s88)

removal for non-use (s 92)

(3) Trademark (s 17)
A trade mark is a sign used or intended to be used to distinguish goods or services dealt with or provided in the course of trade by a person from goods or services so dealt with or provided by any other person
(a) Sign (s 6)
* 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

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

(b) Used or Intended to be Used (s 7)
*Imperial Group Limited v Phillip Morris & Co Limited [1980] 1 FSR 146 (nerit)

Bently & Burrell, “The Requirement of Trade Mark Use” (2002) 13 AIPJ 181

defensive marks (s 185)

(c) Distinguish Goods or Services (s 41)
*Mark Foy’s Limited v Davies Coop & Co Limited (1956) 95 CLR 190

Re Application by Bristol Myers Co (1989) 16 IPR 149

*Howard Auto Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Limited (1946) 72 CLR 175

*Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511

Burger King Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks

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

Top Heavy Pty Ltd v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282

Unilever v Karounas (2001) 52 IPR 361

* Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 40 IPR 498
NOT if become descriptive (s24)
Re Sony Kabushiki Kaisha [1987] AIPC 90-412
NOT if does not in fact become distinctive

(d) Dealt with in Course of Trade
* Re New York Yacht Club Application

(4) Will Not Register (Part 4 Div 2)
prescribed signs (s 39, s 18 and r4.15 and Schedule 2)

can’t be represented graphically (s 40)

not distinguish applicant’s goods and services (s41)

scandalous or contrary to law (s 42)

Advantage Rent A Car Inc v Advantage Car Rental [2001] FCA 683 (8/6/2001)

if likely to deceive or cause confusion (s 43)

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

Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481

NSW Dairy Corp v Murray Goulburn Co-Op (1990) 171 CLR 363

if conflict with registered marks on similar or closely related goods (s 44)

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

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

(5) Opposition (Part 5 Div 2)
same grounds as not register Part 4 Div 2 (s57)

not owner of mark (s58)

not intending to use (s59)

similar to well-known mark (s60)

false geographical indicator (61)

(6) Who Entitled to Register (s 27)
*Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391

Michael Sharwood & Partners Pty Limited v Fudrukkers Inc (1989) 15 IPR 188

Re Yanx Trademark (1951) 82 CLR 199

Anheuser Busch Inc v Castlebrae Pty Limited (1991) 21 IPR 54

*Moorgate Tobacco Co Limited v Phillip Morris Limited (No 2) (1984) 59 ALJR 77 (MBG 2003 at pp533-535)

(7) Exclusive Rights (s 20)
use and authorise others to use

authorised users (s 6)

licensing

• 
  exclusive or non-exclusive
  
• 
  limited in territory, term, rights
  

Yastreboff, M “Managing the Transfer of ‘House’ Brands: Licensing and Trade Mark Splitting” (2002) 13(2) AIPJ 87

(8) Infringement (s 120)
(a) Use as a Trademark
*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

Philips v Remington (2000) 48 IPR 257
Secondary meaning
Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182

Arsenal Football Club v Reed (2001) 54 IPR 623

Rugby Football Union v Cotton Traders Ltd (2002) 54 IPR 604
NOT comparative advertising (s122(1)(d))
NOT dealing in second hand goods (s123)
Fender Australia Pty Limited v Bevk

NOT descriptive

*Top Heavy v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282

* Pepsico Australia Pty Limited (t/z Frito-Lay) v Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited (1996) 33 IPR 161

*Johnson & Johnson Australia v Sterling Pharmaceuticals (1991) 21 IPR 1

NOT parallel importing (s123)

*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

(b) Substantially Identical / Deceptively Similar
*Polaroid Corporation v Sole N Pty Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 49

Deeko Australia Pty Limited v Decor Corporation Pty Limited (1988) 11 IPR 531

Berlei Hestia Industries Limited v Bali Co Inc

*Shell Company of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil Limited (1963) 109 CLR 407

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

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

(c) Registered Goods/Services or Closely Related Goods/Services (120(2))
Coca Cola v All Fect Distributors

MID Sydney Pty Ltd v The Australian Tourism Co Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 561

(d) Well-Known Marks (120(3))
Vegemite, McDonalds
Trade mark dilution
Brand extension

(9) Cancel / Amend / Limit (s 88)
any of grounds opposition Part 5 Div 2
registration obtained as result fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation
use likely to deceive or cause confusion at time of rectification other than at time of registration or because other well-known

(10) Defences (s 122)
Honest Concurrent User

Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182

(11) Domain Names

Trade Marks - Further Reading

• 
  Lahore Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights, Butterworths looseleaf
  
• 
  Shanahans, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, Law Book Company, 1990
  
• 
  Catanzariti, T “Mark of Cain – Distinctiveness in the Australian Trade Marks Act”
  
• 
  Luck “Distinctiveness Deceptive and Confusing Marks under the Trade Marks Act 1995”
  
• 
  1996 7 AIPJ 97
  
• 
  Mostert and Stevens “Protection of Well-Known Trade Marks on Non-Competing Goods” 1996 7 AIPJ 76
  
• 
  Gunning “Trade Marks and Domain Names”
  
• 
  Taylor “Decision in Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd”(2000) 14(2) CLQ 14 ”
  
• 
  The Economist 8 September 2001
  
• 
  Face Value, The Economist 11 May 2002 (page 62)
  

9. OVERLAP OF CATEGORIES OF PROTECTION: COPYRIGHT/ PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION/ BUSINESS REPUTATION/ TRADE MARKS
Sony Music Australia and Michael Jackson v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 27 IPR 649

Musidor BV v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 52 FCR 363

Apand v Kettle Chip Co (1995) 30 IPR 321

Pepsico Australia v Kettle Chip Co (1996) 33 IPR 161

Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia (1998) 39 IPR 303

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 816; (1999) 91 FCR 167

Miller v Britt Alcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) FCA 1724; (2000) 52 IPR 419

Mark Foys Pty Limited v TVSN (Pacific) Limited [2000] FCA 1626; (2000) 104 FCR 61


10. INTERFACE BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974, PT IV
MS, ch 22


11. REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT
MS, ch 2

Directory: lec -> subjects
lec -> A hurricane track density function and empirical orthogonal function approach to predicting seasonal hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin Elinor Keith April 17, 2007 Abstract
lec -> Instructions for Writing Hurricane Term Paper
lec -> Shows that the us leads the world greenhouse gas emission per person
lec -> Atmo 336 – Section 001 Name
lec -> Chapter VI networking and Internet
lec -> Topic 3: surface ocean circulation
subjects -> Diploma in Law
subjects -> Topic 1 unincorporated non‑profit associations introduction