Patents – amendment of patent application by court – power to order amendment after reasons given as to why patent invalid – section 102, whether narrowing amendments to claims resulted in an invention different from that described in the specification
Patents – strike out application re particulars of lack of utility – discovery re lack of utility
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
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
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
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
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.
This note addresses Justice Beach’s findings on the applicant’s liability case in TPT Patrol Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.