Use of the phrases “Love where you live?” and “You love where you live” held not to constitute use of those phrases as a trade mark for the purposes of s 120.
Copyright in plan of subdivision – interlocutory injunction application – balance of convenience weighted against grant of injunction
Patents – transfer of proceedings to Federal Court – overlap in subject matter – risk of inconsistent findings
Patents – amendment to overcome manner of manufacture objection – whether possible to overcome s 102 – whether the principle of finality should prevent iterative amendment applications
Trade marks – validity (s.41) – infringement – defences – s 122(1)(b)(i); s 122(1)(e); s 122(1)(fa)
Consumer Law – replica of “Fearless Girl” statute – discussion of “not insignificant number” criterion – copyright – whether copyright licence granted – inducing breach of contract by artist – limitations on artist’s rights – tort of passing off – trade mark infringement – whether ‘FEARLESS GIRL’ used as a mark.
Trade Marks – Infringement – Interlocutory Injunction – Serious issue to be tried – balance of convenience – application granted.
Three world-class swimmers and the International Swimming League have commenced proceedings in California against FINA to prevent it from banning swimmers, who compete in “non-authorised” swimming events, from competing at the Olympics.
The Court of Appeal, by majority, has held that judgment cannot be entered pursuant to s 16 of the Security of Payments legislation where the payment claim includes “excluded amounts”.
In the recent case of Leeda Projects v Zeng, the Court of Appeal clarified the principles for the assessment of damages for loss of use of real property caused by a breach of contract.
In assessing whether the trial judge’s decision to declare a promisee’s entitlement to inherit the land was disproportionate in satisfying the requirements of conscientious conduct, the Court of Appeal in Harris v Harris identified and applied a number of key principles guiding the award of remedies for proprietary estoppel.
The High Court’s May 2021 decision in MZAPC explores the relevance of materiality to jurisdictional error and when, how and by whom it is to be demonstrated.
High Court refuses ACCC’s application for special leave from the Full Court’s decision in ACCC v Pacific National
On 8 December 2020, the High Court of Australia dismissed the ACCC’s application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court that Pacific National’s (PN) acquisition of the Acacia Ridge terminal (Terminal) from Aurizon would not be likely to substantially lessen competition.
The Full Court of the Federal Court considered the continuing business relationship exemption under s 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act and the validity of the peak indebtedness rule as a matter of Australian law.
In dismissing a claim that the exercise of a power to remove and appoint a trustee was for a foreign or extraneous purpose, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the scope of trust powers and the importance of intention and good faith when ascertaining the validity of the exercise of a power.