Birkenstock has succeeded in securing trade mark protection for the shape of four of its shoes, a boon to the German shoe maker as it fights knock-offs of its popular sandals.
A judge has set aside a costs agreement between a Perth-based law firm and its client in a family law matter that culminated in a $87,000 bill, saying the agreement was “positively misleading” with respect to the applicable hourly rates.
A judge has tossed a contract claim brought against aircraft maintenance company Hawker Pacific by scorned subcontractor Cirrus RTPS, finding that a purported agreement surrounding a joint bid for services offered by the New Zealand Defence Force was not intended to be binding.
UK talent management company TaP Management has filed an appeal after a judge dismissed its bid to permanently stay a case by Australian musical duo Angus & Julia Stone, who allege their former manager overcharged them by $2.8 million.
Former BitConnect national promoter John Louis Bigatton has been convicted for his role in marketing the online cryptocurrency platform, a global Ponzi scheme that reached a market capitalisation of $5 billion before its collapse.
Fund manager Real Asset Management has appealed a ruling which upheld mortgage broker RAMS’ bid to block the registration of two RAM trade marks.
The managing partner of a leading plaintiff law firm has agreed to drop his case against a Melbourne law firm, which he claimed failed to properly advise him on an agreement that barred him from selling his shares in Slater & Gordon before the firm’s share price plummeted in 2015.
Keybridge Capital chief executive officer Nicholas Bolton has lost his appeal of a costs review panel decision that saddled him with a legal bill of $308,940 for work done by Atanaskovic Hartnell for his company in a dispute with Brookfield Multiplex.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has brought proceedings against retailer The Good Guys, alleging it made misleading statements about store credit.
A judge has tossed an unconscionable conduct case against IT company IT&C, but declined to order costs against the individual applicant, citing his “many years of experience”, but no firm evidence, in support of a finding that the order would harm the man’s mental health.