Skincare giant L’Oreal has lost the rights to use a 23-year-old trade mark for branding some of its products, after a competitor successfully campaigned IP Australia to strike it from the register for non-use.
Seven Network has lost its effort to stop convenience chain 7-Eleven from using a contested logo even though Seven had registered the trade mark first, with a court finding the broadcaster sat on the mark for too long before using it.
The defendants in a trade mark infringement case by the Pokemon Company were the victims of identity theft and were wrongly named in the suit, a court has heard.
Apple can argue an Australian non-practicing entity that claims its patents for a remote entry system were infringed by the tech company’s Touch ID and Face ID technology are invalid because of a Hewlett Packard handheld device that was first sold in 2000.
Buy now, pay later giant Zip Co has successfully defended a lawsuit over its use of Firstmac’s ‘Zip’ trade mark and won its bid to have the mortgage provider’s mark removed for non-use.
Payment giant Visa has lost an application for a patent covering a way to transfer assets between banks, with an IP Australia delegate saying the invention uses generic computer technology and is not patentable.
Marlow Foods, maker of popular meat-replacement product Quorn, has lost an application to patent a vegan burger that contains a non-egg binding agent, with IP Australia saying the recipe lacked inventiveness.
CSIRO has won its bid to access samples of a wheat grain product with increased fibre, as it contemplates a possible patent infringement lawsuit against a South Australian food company.
New Zealand honey producers have failed in a lengthy fight with their Aussie counterparts to trade mark the term ‘manuka honey’, with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ruling the phrase is merely descriptive of a type of honey.
An appeals court has said that while it might be desirable for law firms to disclose their involvement in drafting expert reports, they are not legally obligated to do so, overturning a finding that Corrs Chambers Westgarth went “far beyond the permissible scope” of involvement in a report prepared for a trade secrets case.