CooperMills
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ CategoryVictorian Government Releases ICT StrategyTuesday, February 12th, 2013 The Victorian Government today released its ICT Strategy at a AIIA function in Melbourne. The strategy sees a dramatic altering in the landscape of government ICT delivery in Victoria. The strategy sets out 8 ICT decision making principles:
The strategy also signals a change in the central shared services provisioning model administered by the trouble plagued Cenitex.  Tags: ICT, ICT procurement, ICT Strategy, IT Contracts, IT Law, IT Lawyers, Victorian Government Credit.com.au sells for $18,190.00Saturday, October 13th, 2012 In spirited bidding in today’s Netfleet auction, credit.com.au sold for $18,190.00. The purchaser was Bob Olea. The domain was formerly owned by National Credit Insurance (Brokers) Pty Ltd - http://www.nci.com.au/. Tags: .au domains, domain drops, domain lawyer, domain name auction, domain name lawyers, domaining Court clarifies discretion to remove trade marks from registerThursday, June 7th, 2012 In a recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia judgment in Austin, Nichols and Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2012] FCAFC 8 the Court clarified the matters to be considered, by the Court or Registrar in exercising discretion under s101(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1995.
In the first instance, Justice Cowdroy exercised this discretion to keep a trade mark on the Register even though it had not been used during the non-use period. The fundamental reason behind the decision was that, among other things, the removal of the WILD GEESE (‘WG’) mark from the Register would result in public confusion. On appeal, this decision was overturned by the Full Court on account that Cowdroy J erred in finding that WG’s reputation in Australia alone, without the existence of any deceptively similar marks, would result in public confusion if it were removed from the Register. The Full Court found that, in the first instance, consideration was given to the relevant matters in the exercise of the s101(3) discretion although discretion was miscarried in establishing reputation. The relevant considerations can loosely be described as public and private interests, nonetheless, the difficulty lies in balancing these interests when exercising discretion. Although the appellants submitted that Cowdroy J attached too much weight to the likelihood of confusion, the importance attached to each consideration by the Court or Registrar is not a ground for appeal. Accordingly, the Courts or Registrar may be likely to exercise discretion in following circumstances: Use of the trade mark If at the time the application for non-use is filed or after the relevant non-use period, there was use of the trade marked provided the use was in good faith and not colourable. Not abandoned Any further evidence that the trade mark has not been abandoned such as promotional material used during and after the non-use period. Period of non-use Where the period of non-use is not substantial and that there has been has been use of the trade mark soon after the non-use period. Obstacles to use It has been held obstacles to use are those that arise externally or non-voluntarily of the registered owner. These obstacles may include financial impecuniosity, illness of the registered owner or a falling out between joint registered owners of a trademark that disrupts the use. Private commercial interest Where there is a likelihood of legal and financial consequences in relation to brand development, labelling, production and distribution if the mark was removed from the Register. Likelihood of public confusion Where the removal of a trade mark from the Register with an established reputation in Australia would result in public confusion where deceptively similar marks exist. The integrity of the register The public interest in the integrity of the register has been described as the guiding principle behind discretion. This was succinctly demonstrated in CA Henschke & Co v Rosemont Estates Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 63 where the respondents (removal applicants) sought the removal of the HILL OF GRACE mark from the Register on non-use grounds. In consideration of the relevant factors, Finn J found that ‘there was no evidence the public has been deceived; the legal title of the executors was unimpeachable; all beneficial owners had acquiesced in the use by the partnership; no public interest had been adversely affected; no useful purpose was served by removing the trade mark from the Register…’ As appropriately addressed in Henschke, public and private considerations are weighed up and if the Court or Registrar is ‘satisfied that it is reasonable’ not to remove the mark from the register, the s101(3) discretion will be exercised. Tags: non use of trade mark, Trade Mark Law, trade mark lawyer, trademark lawyer, Trademarks Act 1995 Optus loses copyright appealFriday, April 27th, 2012 Optus has today suspended its TV Now service, following a successful appeal against its earlier win in which the Federal Court had held that Optus was not liable for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act (Cth). The case emerged from the Optus TV Now service which enabled Optus customers to record live TV and watch it at a later time, including AFL and ARL. The Court had earlier held that the action of recording was that of the customer and not Optus. Optus now has 21 days in which to seek leave to appeal to the High Court. More to follow. Tags: AFL, ARL, copyright infringement, copyright law, copyright lawyer, IP Law, IP lawyers, Optus auDA Announces 2012 Industry Advisory PanelTuesday, February 21st, 2012 auDA has today announced the membership of the 2012 Industry Advisory Panel. The Panel has been set up to review the structure, regulation and competition in the Australian domain name industry. Cooper Mills Director, Erhan Karabardak has been appointed to the Panel, which will commence its review in March. The Panel also includes representatives of the ACCC and the ACMA. Tags: auDA, australian domain name industry, domain law, domain name law Telstra Wholesale ADSL ‘declared’Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 The ACCC today (14 February 2012) announced that Telstra Wholesale ADSL services are now declared under an interim access determination. The determination made under the Consumer and Competition Act 2010 has fixed the price Telstra can charge its wholesale ADSL customers, the effect of this is that wholesale customers are now benefiting from lower pricing. The price reductions will see competitors such as iiNet better able to compete with Telstra’s retail product offering. This will only serve to bring more scrutiny on NBN pricing and the benefits of cost effective ADSL services in the market place. Tags: ACCC, telecommunications, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers, Telstra iiNet acquires InternodeTuesday, February 21st, 2012 National ISP iiNet has today (22 December 2011) announced the acquisition of competitor Internode in a $105 million deal. The acquisition will see iiNet add a further 190,000 broadband DSL subscribers and 260,000 active services. Internode has forecast FY12 earnings of $180 million. Internode founder and MD Simon Hackett will remain as part of the executive team at Internode. The acquisition by iiNet will solidify its position as the second largest Australian ISP in the residential broadband DSL market. The acquisition is due to be completed on 29 February 2012. Tags: iiNet, Internode, isp law, ISP Lawyers, telecommunications law auDA releases governance review of .auTuesday, February 21st, 2012 .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) the regulator of the .au domain name space today (15 December 2011) released a review of governance undertaken by Westlake Consulting Ltd and Argo Pacific. The report is a 107 page report which was prepared after consultation with a broad variety of stakeholders in the .au space including government, and Cooper Mills Lawyers. The report made 15 recommendations to the board including limits on the tenure of Directors and the publication of an Accountability and Transparency Framework. The issue of Accountability and Transparency has featured prominently in the report, most likely as a result of the perception that auDA was secretive. Of particular note in the report is a call for improvement in the relationship between government and auDA – earlier this week we reported that the Prime Minister had taken responsibility for Cyber Security from the Attorney General’s Department. We hope to publish a more comprehensive analysis of the report shortly. Tags: .au governance, auDA, Cooper Mills Lawyers, domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyer Cyber Security Moves to PM’s OfficeTuesday, February 21st, 2012 13 December 2011 saw the Prime Minister reshuffle her cabinet, but in amongst the reshuffle was a one line comment which carried great significance, that is, Cyber Security Policy is now the responsibility of the Prime Minister and no longer that of the Attorney General’s Department. In her speech the Prime Minister said: ‘Responsibility for cyber security policy will move from the Attorney-General’s portfolio to my portfolio.‘. This marks an escalation in the importance of cyber security, especially in light of the compromise of the parliamentary email system in March this year. While responsibility for the area has moved, it is not clear what impact this will have on Cyber Security Policy and whether a shift in focus is planned. Tags: Cyber Security, Internet Security, IT Lawyer, technology law, technology lawyer Samsung free to sell Galaxy TabTuesday, February 21st, 2012 The High Court has today (9 December 2011) refused Apple’s special leave application to appeal against an earlier Full Federal Court of Australia decision, which lifted an interlocutory injunction original obtained by Apple against Samsung. Earlier this year, Apple had sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction in the Federal Court against Samsung preventing the sale of its Galaxy 10.1 Tablet computer, a serious competitor to the Apple iPad. On appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, the injunction was overturned. Apple then made a special leave application (which is the process by which the High Court determines whether it will hear an appeal from the Full Federal Court) to overturn the Full Federal Court’s decision. While Apple was originally granted a reprieve, with the High Court maintaining the injunction until its decision today, the injunction was ultimately lifted when Apple failed in its bid to have the High Court hear the matter. The effect of today’s decision is that:
Tags: Apple, High Court Appeal, IP Law, IP lawyer, IT Law, Samsung, technology law |
Home | About us | Our expertise | Latest News/Articles | Links | Contact us | Testimonials | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Comments (RSS) | Entries (RSS)
Copyright © 2007 All rights reserved