An appeals court has upheld a ruling which bars use of the RestQ trade mark on sleep products sold by Martin & Pleasance because of a “disturbing” number of similarities with the marketing and appearance of an established competitor’s Rescue natural sleep aid product.
Lawyerly is pleased to announce the winners of its inaugural Litigation Rising Stars competition, which honours 30 lawyers under the age of 40 for their work in high-stakes litigation.
Arnott’s and Campbells have settled a lawsuit brought by Goodman Fielder accusing them of infringing its ‘Plantry’ mark under which it sells plant-based frozen meals, after the cookie company filed a cross-claim seeking to have the mark cancelled.
Food giants Arnott’s and Campbells have hit back in an infringement case over their ‘Plantly’ trade mark, filing a cross-claim that seeks to cancel rival Goodman Fielder’s ‘Plantry’ mark.
A judge has issued an injunction temporarily barring use of the RestQ trade mark on sleep products sold by Martin & Pleasance because of a “disturbing” number of similarities with the marketing and appearance of an established competitor’s Rescue natural sleep aid product.
The Federal Court has delayed a 15-day hearing in a pneumococcal vaccine patent dispute between Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer after the sudden death of a family member of one of Pfizer’s expert witnesses.
Drug giant Merck Sharp & Dohme has brought a cross appeal in its long-running intellectual property dispute with Pfizer’s Wyeth over the top selling Prevnar 13 pneumococcal vaccine.
Pfizer unit Wyeth is seeking to overturn part of a judge’s decision in its high-stakes patent dispute with Merck Sharp & Dohme that found claims in two of its patents relating to the blockbuster Prevnar 13 pneumococcal vaccine were invalid.
A judge has enjoined Merck Sharpe and Dohme from launching its 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine after finding it would infringe claims of a Wyeth patent for its Prevnar 13 vaccine, despite MSD’s argument that barring it from launching the vaccine would be contrary to the public interest.
The High Court has ruled that a patentee’s rights to control what can be done with a patented product after it is sold are “exhausted” upon sale.