ViiV Healthcare Company v Gilead Sciences Pty Limited (No 2)
Patents – strike out application re particulars of lack of utility – discovery re lack of utility
Homepage Blog
Prodata Solutions Pty Ltd v South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission (No 3)
Practice and procedure – application for dismissal of proceedings – failure to prosecute proceedings with due diligence – consideration of the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act – application by corporate applicant to dispense with requirement to be legally represented – termination of four successive lawyers
Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 4: Trade Marks Office Appeal
Trade marks – registration – opposition – appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act against decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing registration of the mark FREEZEFRAME PROTOX – whether a ground of opposition to registration of the marks is established pursuant to ss 42(b), 44, 58, 59, 60 or 62A of the Act
Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 3: removal or cancellation of marks
Trade marks – cross-claim for removal from the Register of Trade Marks for non-use pursuant to s 92(4)(b) of the Act – cross-claim for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to cancel registration of BOTOX trade mark pursuant to s 88(1) of the Act – defensive trade marks
Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 2: Allergan’s liability case
Trade marks – infringement claim under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – consumer law – misleading or deceptive conduct – torts – passing off – whether director should be held personally liable – Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) – whether respondents infringed applicants’ BOTOX marks by using PROTOX as a trade mark
Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 1: Introduction
Trade marks – infringement claim under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act – consumer law – misleading or deceptive conduct – torts – passing off – whether director should be held personally liable – cross-claim for removal from Register for non-use – opposition – appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act – BOTOX and PROTOX
Vindication, but no value: no substantial damages where no provable loss or injury
In a decision with broader public law implications, the High Court held that, absent actual loss or injury, successful plaintiffs can expect no more than an award of nominal damages to vindicate an infringement of their rights, and that ‘vindicatory damages’ have no place in Australian common law.
Myer Holdings – Part 2: Liability
This note addresses Justice Beach’s findings on the applicant’s liability case in TPT Patrol Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd.
Myer Holdings – Part 1: A reader’s digest
Beach J largely upheld shareholders’ claims that Myer had breached continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, also concluding that they could rely on market-based causation. However, his Honour dismissed the proceeding. How? This note and others to follow seek to unpack the issues.
Masters v Lombe: another chapter in the Babcock & Brown saga
The circumstances giving rise to the claims against the insolvent investment and financial services company for breaches of continuous disclosure obligations in its dying days are so unique that the judgment is also likely to fade into unreported oblivion. There are, however, a couple of aspects that are of interest.
Supreme Court rectifies, but says no to conventional estoppel based on pre-contractual dealings
A rare case of rectification which arose because, two years after the sale of a half share in a motel business, the parties realised that their sale agreement had left $6m of debts ‘up in the air’.
When being related is not enough: Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 198
The Court of Appeal has clarified the application of the unfair preference regime to payments by third parties to creditors at the direction of the debtor. In short, to be ‘from’ the debtor, the payment must diminish the assets available to its other creditors. Merely being related parties will not be sufficient.
Carry-back of income tax losses
The 2020-21 Federal Budget papers released on 6 October 2020 contained a potentially significant measure relating to the carry-back of company income tax losses to prior years, as explained in this note.
When you can’t get to the pool – section 90-15 to the rescue on remuneration
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently delivered judgment in the matter of Redstar Transport Pty Ltd (in liq). The case provides helpful guidance for liquidators of corporate groups looking for remuneration recovery absent a pooling order.