<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"> <channel>  <title><![CDATA[Clayton Utz | Intellectual Property - Publications]]></title>  <link>http://www.claytonutz.com/area_of_law/intellectual_property/publications.page</link>  <description/>  <copyright><![CDATA[(c) Clayton Utz 2009]]></copyright>    <language>en-au</language> <item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/07/tv_now_copyright_later_why_the_federal_court_found_for_optus.page</guid><title><![CDATA[TV Now, copyright later: why the Federal Court found for Optus]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/07/tv_now_copyright_later_why_the_federal_court_found_for_optus.page</link><description><![CDATA[The issue of copyright in broadcasts is again in the headlines, with the recent decision over Optus' TV Now service (Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34).]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201201/17/no_breach_of_trade_mark_licence_agreement.page</guid><title><![CDATA[No breach of trade mark licence agreement]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201201/17/no_breach_of_trade_mark_licence_agreement.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has overturned a finding that there had been a breach of a trade mark licence agreement between two formerly associated companies.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201111/29/survey_evidence_in_trade_mark_cases-is_it_any_use.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Survey evidence in trade mark cases - Is it any use?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201111/29/survey_evidence_in_trade_mark_cases-is_it_any_use.page</link><description><![CDATA[adidas brought an application under section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) seeking a declaration that Pacific Brands had infringed its three-stripe trade mark by supplying certain footwear which also displayed decorative stripes.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/10_november_2011/20111110/tablet_patent_wars_down_under-apple_wins_interlocutory_injunction_and_round_one_against_samsung.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Tablet patent wars down under - Apple wins interlocutory injunction and round one against Samsung]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/10_november_2011/20111110/tablet_patent_wars_down_under-apple_wins_interlocutory_injunction_and_round_one_against_samsung.page</link><description><![CDATA[The recent Federal Court decision in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute continues the trend of Australian courts swiftly granting interlocutory injunctions in patent cases, as Mary Still, Nicholas Tyacke, and Simon Hardwick explain.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201111/03/tablet_patent_wars_down_under-apple_wins_interlocutory_injunction_and_round_one_against_samsung.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Tablet patent wars down under - Apple wins interlocutory injunction and round one against Samsung]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201111/03/tablet_patent_wars_down_under-apple_wins_interlocutory_injunction_and_round_one_against_samsung.page</link><description><![CDATA[In the first Australian round of Apple's global patent war against Android tablets and smartphones, the Federal Court of Australia in Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2011] FCA 1164 granted Apple an interlocutory (preliminary) injunction preventing Samsung from launching its Galaxy Tab 10.1 onto the Australian market.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/27_october_2011/20111027/same_name_different_companies_piggybacking_off_anothers_reputation_and_trade_marks.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Same name, different companies: piggybacking off another's reputation and trade marks]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/27_october_2011/20111027/same_name_different_companies_piggybacking_off_anothers_reputation_and_trade_marks.page</link><description><![CDATA[How do you protect your trade marks from use by another? Mary Still sets out some basic tips and lessons from a recent case.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201110/17/any_port_in_a_storm_australian_government_reviews_safe_harbour_laws.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Any port in a storm: Australian Government reviews safe harbour laws]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201110/17/any_port_in_a_storm_australian_government_reviews_safe_harbour_laws.page</link><description><![CDATA[A new consultation paper, Revising the scope of the copyright 'safe harbour scheme', proposes remedying a gap in the safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/google_gets_results_in_ad_words_case.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Google gets results in ad words case]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/google_gets_results_in_ad_words_case.page</link><description><![CDATA[Sponsored links are here to stay, but businesses who place advertisements on Google must make sure they do not imply that their business has an association or affiliation which does not exist, say Richard Hoad and Melanie Keith.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/senate_committee_recommends_against_banning_gene_patents.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Senate Committee recommends against banning gene patents]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/senate_committee_recommends_against_banning_gene_patents.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Senate appears likely to reject the proposal to exclude "biological materials" from patentable subject matter in Australia, as Deborah Polites and Richard Hoad explain.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/good_news_for_trade_mark_owners_strict_-au_domain_name_rules_remain_largely_unchanged.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Good news for trade mark owners: strict ".au" domain name rules remain largely unchanged]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/13_october_2011/20111013/good_news_for_trade_mark_owners_strict_-au_domain_name_rules_remain_largely_unchanged.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australian brand owners can still rely upon some strong protections for their online brand, as Deborah Polites and James Neil explain.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201109/05/australias_innovation_patent_system_under_review.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Australia's innovation patent system under review]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201109/05/australias_innovation_patent_system_under_review.page</link><description><![CDATA[Ten years after its introduction, Australia's unique innovation patent system is under review. On 17 August, the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) published an issues paper, "Review of the Innovation Patent System". The closing date for submissions is 14 October 2011.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201109/01/plunger_wars_latest_decision_bodes_well_for_bodum.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Plunger wars: Latest decision bodes well for Bodum]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201109/01/plunger_wars_latest_decision_bodes_well_for_bodum.page</link><description><![CDATA[Since the famous decision of the High Court of Australia in Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 in 1982, it has been commonly accepted that a rival trader can copy someone else's product with impunity (unless the product is protected by statutory intellectual property rights, such as a registered design), provided that the look-alike product is marked with the rival trader's brand. The recent decision of the Full Federal Court in Peter Bodum A/S & Ors v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 98 casts some doubt on whether that is a correct reading of the High Court's decision.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/audio/iiNet_faces_High_Court_showdown.page</guid><title><![CDATA[iiNet faces High Court showdown]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/audio/iiNet_faces_High_Court_showdown.page</link><description><![CDATA[The iiNet copyright case is off to the High Court. Tim Webb tells BRR Media what the issues are for the High Court to consider, and how the internet industry has responded.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/16/copyright_makes_headlines_in_the_uk.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright makes headlines in the UK]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/16/copyright_makes_headlines_in_the_uk.page</link><description><![CDATA[The UK Court of Appeal has held that the unlicensed receipt and use of headlines or extracts of online news articles, communicated to users by media monitoring companies, will constitute an infringement of the article publisher's copyright (Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2011] EWCA Civ 890).]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/02/federal_court_rules_on_copyright_in_pharmaceutical_product_information_documents.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Federal Court rules on copyright in pharmaceutical product information documents]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/02/federal_court_rules_on_copyright_in_pharmaceutical_product_information_documents.page</link><description><![CDATA[In the recent case between Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd and Apotex Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 846, the Federal Court of Australia addressed for the first time the issues of copyright subsistence and infringement in relation to product information documents (PI) for pharmaceutical products.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201106/23/yeswe-cann-icann_opens_the_domain_name_floodgates.page</guid><title><![CDATA[yeswe.cann - ICANN opens the domain name floodgates]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201106/23/yeswe-cann-icann_opens_the_domain_name_floodgates.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the entity responsible for the management of top-level domains, has approved a groundbreaking plan to dramatically increase the number of domain name suffixes that are available.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201106/21/colour_trade_marks.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Colour trade marks]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201106/21/colour_trade_marks.page</link><description><![CDATA[Ordinary experience, history and literature all tell us that colours operate as powerful stimulants of memory, identification and loyalty.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/23/who_owns_this_ip_independent_contractors_vs_employees_in_ip_ownership_disputes.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Who owns this IP? Independent contractors vs employees in IP ownership disputes]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/23/who_owns_this_ip_independent_contractors_vs_employees_in_ip_ownership_disputes.page</link><description><![CDATA[Generally in the workplace context, any intellectual property (IP) created by an employee in the course of their employment is, in the normal course, owned by the employer.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/20/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</guid><title><![CDATA[When is an ISP liable for its users' copyright infringements?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/20/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</link><description><![CDATA[If the customers of an internet service provider (ISP) infringe copyright and the ISP does not take steps to stop it occurring, is it liable for copyright infringement?]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/16/removal_of_a_trade_mark_for_non-use_and_the_courts_discretion.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Removal of a trade mark for non-use and the court's discretion]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/16/removal_of_a_trade_mark_for_non-use_and_the_courts_discretion.page</link><description><![CDATA[Austin Nichols, the owner of WILD TURKEY for bourbon and other alcoholic drinks, unsuccessfully sought removal of Lodestar's WILD GEESE registration for beverages in classes 32 & 33. Austin appealed from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the Federal Court of Australia, which considered three issues (Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2011] FCA 39).]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201104/04/men_at_works_copyright_appeal_over_kookaburra_doesnt_work_so_well_in_full_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Men At Work's copyright appeal over Kookaburra doesn't work so well in Full Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201104/04/men_at_works_copyright_appeal_over_kookaburra_doesnt_work_so_well_in_full_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[Men At Work and EMI have lost once again in the copyright dispute over "Down under" and "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" after the Full Federal Court dismissed their appeal against a finding of copyright infringement (EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 47 ).]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201103/11/persian_fetta_sounds_exotic_but_that_doesnt_make_it_a_trade_mark.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Persian Fetta: Sounds exotic, but that doesn't make it a trade mark]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201103/11/persian_fetta_sounds_exotic_but_that_doesnt_make_it_a_trade_mark.page</link><description><![CDATA[Choosing brands and trade marks has always been an important selection, and the decision in Yarra Valley Dairy Pty Ltd v Lemnos Foods Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1367 highlights the importance for Australian businesses in choosing differentiating and distinctive trade marks that are able to distinguish their goods and services from their competitors.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201103/10/whats_prior_disclosure_of_pharmaceutical_compounds.page</guid><title><![CDATA[What's prior disclosure of pharmaceutical compounds?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201103/10/whats_prior_disclosure_of_pharmaceutical_compounds.page</link><description><![CDATA[Disclosure of compounds in prior art are novelty defeating even in the absence of sufficient information enabling its production]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/24/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</guid><title><![CDATA[When is an ISP liable for its users' copyright infringements?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/24/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</link><description><![CDATA[An ISP knows its customer infringe copyright and does not take steps to stop it occurring. Is it liable for the copyright infringements - and can the copyright owners, such as movie studios, sue them?]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/22/acip_report_into_patentability_goes_some_way_to_clarifying_patent_law.page</guid><title><![CDATA[ACIP report into patentability goes some way to clarifying patent law]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/22/acip_report_into_patentability_goes_some_way_to_clarifying_patent_law.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property has released its Report into Patentable Subject Matter, and its recommendations, while not radical, would go some way to clarifying the law of patents in Australia if adopted.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/08/federal_governments_2011_legislative_plans_for_intellectual_property.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Federal Government's 2011 legislative plans for intellectual property]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/08/federal_governments_2011_legislative_plans_for_intellectual_property.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Prime Minister has released the list of legislation proposed for introduction in the Autumn sittings of Federal Parliament, starting Tuesday 8 February.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/17/copyright_in_medical_records_where_is_the_independent_intellectual_effort.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright in medical records: where is the "independent intellectual effort"?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/17/copyright_in_medical_records_where_is_the_independent_intellectual_effort.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australian courts have been emphasising the importance of "independent intellectual effort" in copyright cases recently, and Primary Health Care Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 419 is another in this trend.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/07/clayton_utz_client_uniloc_wins_patent_infringement_case_against_microsoft.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Clayton Utz client Uniloc wins patent infringement case against Microsoft]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/07/clayton_utz_client_uniloc_wins_patent_infringement_case_against_microsoft.page</link><description><![CDATA[Clayton Utz client Uniloc's claims of patent infringement against Microsoft have recently been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), vindicating Uniloc's struggles against the software giant.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/23/the_importance_of_being_specific_ip_ownership_in_employee_contracts.page</guid><title><![CDATA[The importance of being specific: IP ownership in employee contracts]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/23/the_importance_of_being_specific_ip_ownership_in_employee_contracts.page</link><description><![CDATA[In general, an employer is taken to own any intellectual property (IP) that is created by an employee in the course of their employment. The recent case of Courier Pete Pty Ltd v Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 735 highlights the importance of ensuring that this is clearly stated in the employee's contract.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/16/computer-generated_compilations_not_protected_by_copyright_says_full_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Computer-generated compilations not protected by copyright, says Full Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/16/computer-generated_compilations_not_protected_by_copyright_says_full_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[In rejecting Telstra's appeal the Full Federal Court has confirmed that the output from databases is unlikely to be protected by copyright without some intellectual effort or exercise of skill and judgment.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/06/new_anti-counterfeiting_trade_agreement_finalised-now_to_see_if_australia_ratifies_it.page</guid><title><![CDATA[New Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement finalised - now to see if Australia ratifies it]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/06/new_anti-counterfeiting_trade_agreement_finalised-now_to_see_if_australia_ratifies_it.page</link><description><![CDATA[The text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a new international intellectual property agreement on enforcement obligations aimed at countering copyright and trade mark piracy, has been settled.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/26/australia_looks_at_banning_patents_for_biological_materials.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Australia looks at banning patents for biological materials]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/26/australia_looks_at_banning_patents_for_biological_materials.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australia could be about to ban the patenting of a wide range of biological materials, if the new Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 is passed.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/22/making_your_trap_count_in_passing_off_claims.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Making your trap count in passing off claims]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/22/making_your_trap_count_in_passing_off_claims.page</link><description><![CDATA[It is commonplace in litigation involving claims of misleading or deceptive conduct or passing off to rely on evidence obtained by way of "trap" orders or dealings. The recent decision in Nick Scali Limited v Super A-Mart Pty Limited [2010] FCA 1130 highlights that the weight given to such evidence could be diminished where the applicant fails to give timely notice of the trap dealing to the respondent.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201009/10/is_there_copyright_in_this_headline_not_according_to_the_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Is there copyright in this headline? Not according to the Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201009/10/is_there_copyright_in_this_headline_not_according_to_the_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[For the first time in Australia, a court has decided that there is no copyright in newspaper headlines (Fairfax Media Publications v Reed International Books Australia).]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201008/27/is_your_trade_mark_distinctive_or_just_descriptive.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Is your trade mark distinctive or just descriptive?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201008/27/is_your_trade_mark_distinctive_or_just_descriptive.page</link><description><![CDATA[Mary Still and Brett Doyle look at the problems of using a common term for your trade mark.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/30/taiwanese_company_successfully_sued_in_australia_for_infringing_copyright_in_hong_kong_tv_program.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Taiwanese company successfully sued in Australia for infringing copyright in Hong Kong TV program]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/30/taiwanese_company_successfully_sued_in_australia_for_infringing_copyright_in_hong_kong_tv_program.page</link><description><![CDATA[Mary Still, Timothy Webb and Evan Manolios look at a recent case study of how a Chinese copyright owner enforced its rights in Australia.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/29/is_the_kookaburra_laughing_about_5_of_down_under_royalties.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Is the kookaburra laughing about 5% of Down Under royalties?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/29/is_the_kookaburra_laughing_about_5_of_down_under_royalties.page</link><description><![CDATA[How much will infringing the copyright in "Kookaburra" cost Men At Work, ask Mary Still and Emily Hawcroft.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/09/makers_of_counterfeit_ugg_boots_imprisoned_for_contempt_of_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Makers of counterfeit Ugg Boots imprisoned for contempt of court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/09/makers_of_counterfeit_ugg_boots_imprisoned_for_contempt_of_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[Imprisonment in IP cases is unusual, but as Mary Still and Korina Hui explain, it is available when the infringer flouts court orders.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/the_smoking_dress_dress_design_infringement_priority_dates_and_documentation.page</guid><title><![CDATA[The smoking dress: Dress design infringement, priority dates, and documentation]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/the_smoking_dress_dress_design_infringement_priority_dates_and_documentation.page</link><description><![CDATA[John Fairbairn and Emily Hawcroft examine a recent designs case in the Federal Court involving two dress retailers and allegations by each party of copying various dress design.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/youtube_finds_safe_harbour_in_viacom_copyright_case.page</guid><title><![CDATA[YouTube finds safe harbour in Viacom copyright case]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/youtube_finds_safe_harbour_in_viacom_copyright_case.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Viacom v YouTube case is an important one on the liability of service providers for their users' copyright infringement, as Mary Still explains.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/advertising_and_marketing_law_insights/20100707/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Advertising and Marketing Law Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/advertising_and_marketing_law_insights/20100707/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: Budget Eyewear v Specsavers: Don't be blind to the risk of copyright infringement;]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201006/25/whiskas_purple_colour_mark_gets_up_in_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Whiskas purple colour mark gets up in Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201006/25/whiskas_purple_colour_mark_gets_up_in_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[A successful application for a colour mark should give brand owners some encouragement to explore registering their own colour marks, say Mary Still and Brett Doyle.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201006/16/should_ticket_onselling_be_regulated_asks_new_issues_paper.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Should ticket onselling be regulated, asks new issues paper]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201006/16/should_ticket_onselling_be_regulated_asks_new_issues_paper.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Australian Government's Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council is looking at whether ticket onselling, including scalping, should be regulated, says Chris McLeod.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/26/implementing_the_trips_protocol-public_comment_sought.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Implementing the TRIPS Protocol - public comment sought]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/26/implementing_the_trips_protocol-public_comment_sought.page</link><description><![CDATA[IPAustralia is seeking comment on the implementation of the TRIPS Protocol, which would make compulsory licences for pharmaceutical products easier to grant.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/05/new_bill_creates_satellite_services_to_fix_digital_tv_black_spots.page</guid><title><![CDATA[New bill creates satellite services to fix digital TV black spots]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/05/new_bill_creates_satellite_services_to_fix_digital_tv_black_spots.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australians living in digital TV black spots will be served by new satellite services to be established by a new Broadcasting Bill. Mary Still and Joshua Barwick look at what's in store.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/03/seizing_counterfeit_goods_under_the_trade_marks_act-a_warning_to_pirates_everywhere.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Seizing counterfeit goods under the Trade Marks Act - a warning to pirates everywhere]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/03/seizing_counterfeit_goods_under_the_trade_marks_act-a_warning_to_pirates_everywhere.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Trade Marks Act gives trade mark owners a powerful tool for seizing counterfeits, say Mary Still and Lauren Kapp, as a recent case shows.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/29/european_google_adwords_case-a_win_both_for_trade_mark_owners_and_for_google.page</guid><title><![CDATA[European Google AdWords case - a win both for trade mark owners and for Google]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/29/european_google_adwords_case-a_win_both_for_trade_mark_owners_and_for_google.page</link><description><![CDATA[The EU's highest court has struck a blow for trade mark owners whose marks are used by competitors in paid advertisements on search engines. Nicholas Tyacke and Kelly Marshall explain.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/23/whos_aggrieved_high_court_gives_greater_scope_for_seeking_deregistration_of_a_rivals_trade_mark.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Who's aggrieved? High Court gives greater scope for seeking deregistration of a rival's trade mark]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/23/whos_aggrieved_high_court_gives_greater_scope_for_seeking_deregistration_of_a_rivals_trade_mark.page</link><description><![CDATA[The High Court's decision in Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 13 will make it easier to apply to remove a competitor's mark that may have been wrongly made or which wrongly remains on the Trade Marks Register.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/09/resale_rights_for_visual_artists_royalty_scheme-administrator_appointed.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Resale rights for visual artists royalty scheme - administrator appointed]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/09/resale_rights_for_visual_artists_royalty_scheme-administrator_appointed.page</link><description><![CDATA[The collecting agency for the new resale royalty scheme for visual artists has been appointed, says Mary Still.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201003/29/employers_employees_and_intellectual_property_the_saga_of_university_of_western_australia_v_gray.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Employers, employees, and intellectual property: The saga of University of Western Australia v Gray]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201003/29/employers_employees_and_intellectual_property_the_saga_of_university_of_western_australia_v_gray.page</link><description><![CDATA[Mary Still and Lauren Kapp explain the ownership of the inventions of university employees arising from the UWA v Gray case - an important question for universities, and the private sector firms which use those inventions.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
