DIPLOMA IN LAW
LEGAL PROFESSION
ADMISSION BOARD
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE SUBJECT GUIDE
22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
WINTER SESSION 2016
This Guide includes the Law Extension Committee’s course information and teaching program and the
Legal Profession Admission Board’s syllabus. The syllabus is contained under the heading “Prescribed
Topics and Course Outline” and has been prepared in accordance with Rule 27H(a) of the NSW
Admission Board Rules 2015.
Course Description and Objectives
Lecturer
Assessment
September 2016 Examination
Lecture Program
Weekend Schools 1 and 2
Texts and Materials
Prescribed Topics and Course Outline
Compulsory Assignment
Assignment Question
Sample Examination Questions
1
1
1-2
2
3
4
5-6
6-33
33
34
34-36
1
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE
WINTER 2016
22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
The law of intellectual property includes the areas of copyright, design, patents, confidential information,
business reputation and trade marks. The course provides a general introduction to intellectual property,
outlining, for each principal category of protection, how the rights arise, the nature of the rights,
ownership and exploitation as well as infringement and remedies.
Throughout the course, key policy issues are considered including the rationale and role of intellectual
property law, the overlap between areas of protection, the growing importance of Australia’s obligations
under international treaties and the interaction of intellectual property law with other areas such as trade
practices law.
LECTURER
Ms Beth Oliak, BSEE (Northwestern University), JD (Washington University in St Louis School of
Law)
Ms Oliak is a barrister specialising in intellectual property and general commercial litigation. Prior to
relocating to Australia, she practiced exclusively in patent litigation for a number of years at a major
New York law firm. She is also a registered patent attorney in the United States and has drafted and
prosecuted numerous patent applications. She holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering
and thus her focus has been primarily on computer hardware and software patents. She has lectured,
given presentations and prepared articles regarding issues relating to patent law on a number of
occasions.
Ms Therese Catanzariti, BEc, LLB (Hons 1)(Syd), LLM (Merit) (Lond)
Ms Catanzariti is a barrister at the NSW Bar and specialises in intellectual property, commercial
litigation, wills/probate and taxation. She was previously a senior associate at Mallesons Stephen
Jaques (now King Wood Mallesons), as well as senior legal counsel at Nokia Corporation and GE
Healthcare in Finland and Sweden. She is a graduate of the University of Sydney, holding Bachelor of
Economics (Accounting), Bachelor of Laws (Hons 1) degree, and a graduate of the University of London
(QMW) holding a Master of Laws (Merit) degree. Ms Catanzariti has also lectured in intellectual property
at UTS, copyright law at UTS and University of Sydney, designs law at UTS, and Entertainment Law at
University of New South Wales.
ASSESSMENT
To be eligible to sit for the Board’s examinations, all students must complete the LEC teaching and
learning program, the first step of which is to ensure that you have registered online with the LEC in
each subject for which you have enrolled with the Board. This gives you access to the full range of
learning resources offered by the LEC.
To register with the LEC, go to www.sydney.edu.au/lec and click on the WEBCAMPUS link and follow
the instructions. Detailed guides to the Webcampus are contained in the material distributed by the
LEC, in the Course Information Handbook, and on the Webcampus.
2
Eligibility to Sit for Examinations
In accordance with the Legal Profession Admission Rules, the LEC must be satisfied with a student’s
performance in a subject in order for the student to be eligible to sit for the examination, conducted by
the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB). Assignments are used to assess eligibility.
Students are expected to achieve at least a pass mark of 50% in assignments to be eligible to sit for
examinations. However, a category of “deemed eligible” has been introduced to offer students whose
assignment mark is between 40-49% an opportunity to sit for the examination. In these circumstances
students are often advised not to sit. A mark below 40% means a student is not eligible to sit for the
examination.
Assignments as part of the Board’s Examinations
Assignment results contribute 20% to the final mark in each subject.
The Law Extension Committee (LEC) administers the setting and marking of assignments. The LEC
engages the LPAB’s Examiners to assess or supervise the assessment of assignments.
Submission
Assignments must be received by 11:59pm on the due date unless an extension has been granted.
Extensions must be requested by email prior to the due date. Specific supporting evidence must be
provided. Assignments that are more than ten days late will not be accepted. Late assignments attract a
penalty of one mark out of 20, or 5% of the total marks available, per day.
Assessment
Assignments are assessed according to the “Assignment Grading and Assessment Criteria” outlined in
the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments. Prior to the examination, assignments
will be returned to students and results posted on students’ individual results pages of the LEC
Webcampus. Students are responsible for checking their results screen and ascertaining their eligibility
to sit for the examination.
Review
Where a student’s overall mark after the examination is between 40-49%, the student’s assignment in
that subject will be included in the Revising Examiner’s review. The final examination mark is
determined in accordance with this review. Assignment marks will not otherwise be reviewed.
SEPTEMBER 2016 EXAMINATION
Candidates will be expected to have a detailed knowledge of the six (6) principal types of intellectual
property studied in the course, namely: copyright, industrial designs, patents, confidential information,
business reputation (passing off and related statutory actions) and trade marks.
Candidates will be assessed on the requirements for obtaining each of these intellectual property rights,
how infringement of such rights is determined, and the remedies available in the event infringement is
established. Candidates will also be expected to have an appreciation for the interaction between the
six (6) principal types of intellectual property studied in the course.
All enquiries in relation to the examination should be directed to the Legal Profession Admission Board.
3
LECTURE PROGRAM
Lectures will be held on Monday nights commencing at 6.00pm on 9 May 2016. In the first half of
semester, they will be held in Architecture Lecture Theatre 3, Faculty of Architecture, Design and
Planning, in the Wilkinson Building, which is across City Road on the Darlington Campus. Please refer
to the map at https://sydney.edu.au/maps/embed/?building=G04. Lecture venues for the second half of
the semester have yet to be confirmed.
Please note that the program below is a general guide and may be varied according to need.
WEEK
VENUE
TOPIC
1
9 May
Architecture LT 3
Introduction to Intellectual Property/Trade Marks
2
16 May
Architecture LT 3
Trade Marks
3
23 May
13 Floor Wentworth
Introduction to Copyright
4
30 May
Architecture LT 3
Trade Marks
5
6 Jun
Architecture LT 3
Passing Off
6
13 Jun
No Lecture – Queen’s Birthday Public Holiday
Study Break: Saturday 18 June – Sunday 3 July 2016
7
4 Jul
TBA
Confidential Information
8
11 Jul
TBA
Copyright
9
18 Jul
TBA
Copyright
10
25 Jul
TBA
Industrial Designs
Copyright/Design Overlap
11
1 Aug
TBA
Patents
12
8 Aug
TBA
Patents
4
WEEKEND SCHOOLS 1 AND 2
There are two weekend schools principally for external students. Lecture students may attend but
should be aware that weekend school classes aim to cover the same material provided in weekly
lectures and are primarily for the assistance of external students.
It may not be possible to cover the entire course at the weekend schools. These programs are a general
guide, and may be varied according to need. Readings are suggested to introduce you to the material to
be covered in the lecture, to enhance your understanding of the topic, and to encourage further reading.
You should not rely on them alone.
Weekend School 1
TIME
MAJOR TOPICS
KEY READING
Saturday 28 May 2016: 4.00pm – 8.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115
(New LSSR 115)
4.10pm-5.20pm
Introduction to Intellectual Property
Trade Marks
5.30pm-6.35pm
Trade Marks
6.45pm-8.00pm
Business Reputation
See readings under "Prescribed Topics
and Course Outline"
Sunday 29 May 2016 4.00pm – 8.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115 (New
LSSR 115)
4.10pm-5.20pm
Patents
5.30pm-6.35pm
Patents
6.45pm-8.00pm
Confidential Information
See readings under "Prescribed Topics
and Course Outline"
Weekend School 2
TIME
MAJOR TOPICS
KEY READING
Saturday 23 July 2016: 4.00pm – 8.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115
(New LSSR 115)
4.10pm-5.20pm
Copyright
5.30pm-6.35pm
Copyright
6.45pm-8.00pm
Copyright
See readings under "Prescribed Topics
and Course Outline"
Sunday 24 July 2016: 4.00pm – 8.00pm in New Law School Seminar Room 115
(New LSSR 115)
4.10pm-5.20pm
Copyright
5.30pm-6.35pm
Industrial Designs
6.45pm-8.00pm
Copyright/Design Overlap
See readings under "Prescribed Topics
and Course Outline"
5
TEXTS AND MATERIALS
For the period from 21 April to 30 May 2016, LexisNexis is offering our students a special discount and free
shipping on purchases made through the LexisNexis e-store at www.store.lexisnexis.com.au. Students quoting the
promo code LECW2016 will receive a 15% discount on all text titles (except for those authored by John Carter).
This discount is not limited to the prescribed or recommended texts for our courses. Students should, however, still
compare LexisNexis’s discounted price with that of other outlets. The Co-op Bookshop, for example, offers a
discount on texts sold to its members.
COURSE MATERIALS


Supplementary Materials in Intellectual Property (available via the link to the Law Library in the
Course Materials section of the LEC Webcampus)
Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments (available on the LEC Webcampus)
PRESCRIBED MATERIALS



LexisNexis Intellectual Property Collection 2016, LexisNexis.
Stewart, Griffith & Bannister, Intellectual Property in Australia, 5th ed. LexisNexis, 2014 (SGB)
Ricketson and Richardson, Intellectual Property: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 5th ed. Lexis
Nexis, 2013 (RR)
REFERENCE MATERIALS
Australian current texts

Davison, Monotti, Wiseman Australian Intellectual Property Law, 3rd edition, Cambridge Press, 2015
(DMW 2015) Commentary only, no case extracts.

Price, Bodkin, Arnold, Adjei, Intellectual Property Commentary and Materials Casebook, 5th edition,
Thomson Reuters, 2012 (PBA 2012)
Other useful Australian texts





Ricketson, The Law of Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters, 2d ed., 2001
Shanahan, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, 5th ed. Thomson Reuters, 2012
Bodkin, Patent Law in Australia, 2d ed. Thomson Reuters, 2014
Phillips, Protecting Designs Law and Litigation, Thomson Reuters, 1994
Elkington, Hall & Kell, Annotated Trade Marks Act 1995, LexisNexis, 2010
United Kingdom texts


Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed. Sweet and
Maxwell, 2013
Skone James, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 17th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2016
Loose leaf and online services




CCH, Australian Industrial and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs, Patents, Trade Marks,
Legislation and Cases
Lahore, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis
Lahore, Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights LexisNexis
Garnsey, Dwyer, Duffy and Covell, Intellectual Property in Australia: Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks, LexisNexis
6
Periodicals





Australian Copyright Council Bulletin
Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin
Australian Intellectual Property Law Journal
Copyright Reporter
Intellectual Property Forum
Blogs
http://ipwars.com/ - Warwick Rothnie (Melbourne IP barrister)
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.au/ - IPKat – English/EU IP blog
http://www.patentlyo.com/ - Patently O – US IP blog
PRESCRIBED TOPICS AND COURSE OUTLINE
Many cases listed are relevant for more than one topic area. Most cases are reported in both the
Intellectual Property Reports (“IPR”) and the Australian Intellectual Property Cases (“AIPC”).
An asterisk (“*”) in front of a case denotes that the case is recommended reading for this course. Where
possible, the location of case extracts in the text books is identified next to the case reference.
1.
INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Relevant chapter for Topic 1 in Prescribed Materials


(1)
RR: Ch1
SGB: Ch 1 and 2
History of intellectual property





(2)
Bakers Marking Law 1266
Venetian Patent Statute 1474
Statute of Monopolies 1623
Stationers Company
Statute of Anne 1709
Knowledge as property


Intellectual Property philosophy – personal, economic, market
Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303; 98 ER 201
(3)
Intellectual property as property
(4)
Public domain
(5)
International aspects of intellectual property protection





(6)
Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886
Rome Convention for Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organisations 1961
Paris Convention on Patents and Trade Marks
WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 1995
Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1969
Australian statutes


Constitution section 51(xxix)
Copyright Act 1968
7




Patents Act 1990
Trade Marks Act 1995
Designs Act 2003
Australian Consumer Law (part of Competition and Consumer Act 2010)
Copyleft
Creative Commons
Open Source
Parliament’s right to create and curtail
JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43 (Tobacco Plain Packaging)
“Rethinking the role of intellectual property”, Dr Francis Gurry, Director-General WIPO, WIPO
Seminar, 22 August 2013
2.
COPYRIGHT
Relevant chapters for Topic 2 in Prescribed Materials




(1)
SGB: Ch 5, 6, 7, 8.and 9
DMW 2012: Ch. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
PBA: 2012 Part 2
RR: Part 2
What is copyright?
(a)
Definitions of copyright
(b)
Copyright as property: s196 Copyright Act (“CA”)



(c)
Fundamental distinction – ‘form of expression’ vs ‘ideas and information’






(2)
Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106
Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479
Autodesk v Dyason (No 1) (1992) 66 ALJR 233
L B (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] R.P.C. 551
Zeccola v Universal City Studios [1982] 46 ALR 189
Elwood v Cotton On (2008) 80 IPR 566
Origin and rationale of copyright


(3)
Dickens, Dickens v Hawksley [1935] 1 Ch 267
Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154
JR Consulting v Cummings [2014] NSWSC 1252
Statute of Anne 1709
Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303; 98 ER 201
Subsistence of copyright
The four requirements for copyright protection:
(a)
Authorship and connecting factors

(b)
Subject matter

(c)
created by a ‘qualified person’: ss 32(4), 84, 184 CA
‘works’ and ‘subject matter other than works’: ss10, 32, 89-92 CA
Material form: ss10, 22 CA
8

(d)
Originality: s32 CA









(4)
Nine Network Australia v Australian Broadcasting Corp (2000) 48 IPR 335 (Y2K
fireworks)
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539
* University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601
Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213
Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991)
* Telstra Corporation v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd (2001) 51 IPR 257
* Nine Network Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 458;
* Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (2010) 90
IPR 1
Ladbroke Football Ltd v William Hill Football Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273
JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
Works
The four types of ‘works’ under Part III CA:
(a)
Literary
(i)
Types of literary works
(ii)
General principles


(iii)
Short and insubstantial literary works







(iv)
* Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] RPC 69
Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Limited [1964] 1 WLR
273
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Ltd [1940] AC 112
Nine Network Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 458
State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies Pty Ltd (No.2) [2009] FCA 737
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia
Pty Ltd (2010) 88 IPR 11
Elwood Clothing v Cotton On Clothing (2008) 80 IPR 566
Computer programs




(b)
* University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 607
Hollinrake v Truswell (1894) 3 Ch D 420
Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171
* Autodesk v Dyason (1991) 22 IPR 163
* Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 353
JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
Dramatic







* Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand (1988) 16 IPR 1
Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2000) 48
IPR 335
* Telstra Corporation Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Ltd (2003)
57 IPR 453
* Zeccola v Universal City Studios (1982) 46 ALR 189
Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53 at 63-67
Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 1 (photo shoot
for ‘Oasis’ album cover)
Norowzian v Ark Ltd; Guinness Worldwide [1998] EWHC 315 (Guinness
‘Anticipation’ ad)
9
(c)
Musical


(d)
CBS Records Australia Ltd v Gross (1989) 15 IPR 385
EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd (2011) 90
IPR 50
Artistic
(i)
Definition: s10(1) CA
(ii)
Paintings



(iii)
Sculptures



(iv)
* Lincoln Industries Ltd v Wham-O Manufacturing Co (1984) 3 IPR 115
(Frisbee)
* Greenfield Products v Rover-Scott Bonnar (1990) 17 IPR 417
Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 1
Drawings







* Elwood Clothing v Cotton On Clothing (2008) 80 IPR 566 at [14], [47][54] (definition of drawing)
* Interlego AG v Croner Trading (1992) 111 ALR 577
LED Builders v Eagle Homes (1999) 44 IPR 24
Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR
309
Tamawood Limited v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 (31 March
2004)
Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 375
(alfresco quadrant)
Lott v JBW & Friends [2000] SASC 3 (opera in the outback)
(v)
Engravings
(vi)
Photographs
(vii)
Buildings and models of buildings
(viii)
Works of artistic craftsmanship







(5)
* Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32
Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd v Melbourne Chinese Press Pty
Ltd (2003) 58 IPR 1
Cummins v Vella [2002] FCAFC 218 (Full Court unreported 16/07/2002)
Cuisenaire v Reed (1963) VR 719
Muscat v Le (2004) 60 IPR 276
Merlet v Mothercare plc (1984) 2 IPR 456
George Henscher v Restawhile Upholstery (Lanes) Limited (1975) RPC
31
Coogi Australia Pty Limited v Hysport International Pty Limited (1998) 41
IPR 593
Sheldon v Metrokane (2004) AIPC 91-972
* Burge v Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17; (2007) 234 ALR 204
Subject Matter other than works
(a)
Cinematograph films

Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Limited v Pacific Gaming Pty Limited (2001) 50
IPR 29
10


(b)
Sound and Television Broadcasts

(c)
(d)
(6)
* Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 59 IPR 1 (“The Panel”
case), esp at [68], [100]-[102] and [142]
Published editions of works

Protection for the skill and labour in presenting material in an edition (ie. the
layout as distinct from the words used in the story). Applies to newspaper stories,
magazines and the like.

Nationwide News Pty Limited v Copyright Agency Limited (1996) 134 IPR 53
Sound recordings

(e)
Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 462
Sega Enterprises Ltd v Gottlieb Electronics Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 161
CBS Records Australia Limited v Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Limited
(1987) 9 IPR 440
Performers’ protection
Ownership
(a)
Works – owner is ‘author’
(i)
ss10(1) (“work of joint authorship”), 35(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6) CA
(ii)
Co-ownership/joint owners


(iii)
Commissioned works
(iv)
Journalists’ copyright
(v)
Employee authors



(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 157 ALR 193
Equitable Ownership

JR Consulting v Cummings [2014] NSWSC 1252
Subject matter other than works – owner is ‘maker’


(7)
Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (2010)
90 IPR 1
Community ownership

(c)
*Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd v Hinkley (2001) 50 IPR 565
Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v The Australian Council for Educational
Research Limited [2012] FCA 779 (Department of Education
questionnaire)
JR Consulting v Cummings [2014] NSWSC 1252
No human author

(b)
Primary Health Care Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 86 IPR
259
Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301
s22 CA
National Rugby League v Singtel Optus (Optus Now case) (2012) 95 IPR 321
Duration
Exclusive Rights
11
(a)
Works: s31 CA
(i)
Reproduction


(ii)
Publication

(iii)
(iv)
* Telstra v APRA (1997) 191 CLR 140
* Roadshow v iinet (trial judge decision) (2011) 89 IPR 1
National Rugby League v Singtel Optus (Optus Now case) (2012) 95 IPR
321
Subject matter other than works




Cinematograph films: s86 CA
Television and sound broadcasts: s87 CA
Published editions of works: s88 CA
Sound recordings: s85 CA
Performers

(8)
APRA v Tolbush (1985) 62 ALR 521
*APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157
Communication to the public



(c)
Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusements Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 88
Public performance


(b)
CBS Records Australia Ltd v Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd (1987) 9
IPR 440
King Features Syndicate v O&M Kleeman [1941] AC 417
ss248G and 248J CA
Assignment and licensing
(a)
Assignment





(b)
ss196(1), 197 CA
Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53
Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 799
Acorn Computers v MCS Microcomputers (1984) 4 IPR 214
Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Educational Research
Ltd [2013] FCAFC 62
Licensing
(i)
ss196(2), 197 CA
(ii)
exclusive licence (s119)
(iii)
implied licence



(c)
Beck v Montana (1963) 80 WN NSW 1578
*Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales (2008) 233 CLR
279
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102
(generic drug manufacturer not implied right to use original patent owner
product information documents)
Statutory licences
12
(d)
Collecting societies





(9)
APRA – Australian Performing Right Association (musical works)
PPCA – Phonographic Performance Company Ltd (sound recordings)
CAL – Copyright Agency (literary works)
Screenrights (cinematograph films)
Viscopy (artistic works) (managed by Copyright Agency)
Infringement - introduction
Direct and indirect infringement
(10)
Direct infringement of works
(a)
Substantiality (s14 CA)
(i)
Works






(ii)
Other subject matter

(b)
*Corelli v Gray (1913) 29 TLR 570
*Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466
EMI Songs v Larrikin Music Publishing (2011) 90 IPR 50
Need for resemblance or objective similarity
(i)
General

(ii)
(iii)
* Universal City Studios Inc v Zeccola [1982] AIPC 90-019
‘Look and feel’

* Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd (2008) 80 IPR 566
Proof and evidence

(11)
* Kenrick v Lawrence (1890) 25 QB 99
Particular example: Literary and dramatic works: plots and characters

(d)
Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 59 IPR 1
Need for a causal connection




(c)
Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Films Services [1934] 1 Ch 593
Ladbroke (Football) v William Hill [1964] I All ER 465; 1 WLR 273
Autodesk v Dyason [2002] FCA 1206
Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited (1999) 45 IPR
353
Icetv v Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 80 IPR 451
EMI Songs Australia v Larrikin Music Publishing (2011) 90 IPR 50
Allam v Aristocrat (2012) 95 IPR 242
Authorisation of infringement of copyright in works and other subject matter
(a)
General



ss36(1) and 101(1) CA
UNSW v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (2012) 95 IPR 29;
13


(b)
Peer to peer networks





(c)
Universal Music v Cooper [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006) (s112E does
not preclude an infringement finding on the authorisation ground under s36 or
s101)
Sharman Networks Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1
(appeal to Full Federal Court was heard in February 2006, but no decision due to
settlement)
A&M Records v Napster Inc 239 F3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001) 50 IPR 232 (US case)
MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd (US Supreme Court, 27 June 2005)
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (2012) 95 IPR 29
Directors

(12)
National Rugby League v Singtel Networks (2012) 201 FCR 147 (“Optus Now”
case)
JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
JR Consulting v Cummings [2016] FCAFC 20
Secondary infringement
Importation and commercial dealings with infringing copies:




(13)
Defences
(a)
Exceptions and limitations on protection in general
(b)
Fair dealing: ss40, 41, 41A and 42 (for Pt IV – see 103A-103C)




De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Limited (1990) 18 IPR 292
TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten 50 IPR 335 (The Panel case) (trial – Conti J);
(2002) 55 IPR 112 (Full Court)
s41A – the new ‘parody or satire’ defence
Campbell v Acuff Rose 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
(c)
Other defences
(d)
Other protection available to copyright owners


(14)
ss37 and 38 CA (works)
ss102 and 103 CA (other subject matter)
Computermate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ozi-Soft Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 487
Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation (1992) 23 IPR 377
Technological protection measures: Part 5, Div 2A (ss116AK-116D)
Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005) HCA 58
Remedies
RR 2005 at 452-462
(a)
Remedies in general
(b)
Damages under s115 CA
(i)
Compensatory damages: s115(2)



Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69
Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301
Aristocrat Technologies Australia v DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Ltd
[2007] FCAFC 40 (29 March 2007)
14




(ii)
Additional damages: s115(4)







(iii)
Dart v Décor (1993) 179 CLR 101
Bugatti GmbH v Shine Forever Men Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 171 (trade
mark case)
Joint tortfeasors

(c)
Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69
APRA v Pashalides 2000 (2000) 48 IPR 610
Allam v Aristocrat (2012) 95 IPR 242 (commercial scale)
Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v The Australian Council for Educational
Research Limited [2012] FCA 779
Bailey v Namol Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 147 (surreptitious)
Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No 3)
[2014] FCA 909
Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Quality Kebab Wholesalers Pty
Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 840
Account of profits


(iv)
Elwood v Cotton On (2009) 81 IPR 378; (decision on damages)
Norm Engineering v Digga Australia [2008] FCAFC 33 ; (2007)162 FCR 1
Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Council for Educational
Research Ltd [2013] FCAFC 62
Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 55 (design case)
Offences – Part V, Div 5 CA
Moral Rights – Part IX CA
(15)


Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] (2006) 70 IPR 172;
Perez v Fernandez (2012) 260 FCR 1
Groundless Threats of Copyright Infringement – s202 CA
(16)

3.
Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA 62
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Required reading




(1)
SGB: Ch 10
DMW 2012: Ch 10
PBA 2012: Ch 14
RR 2012: Ch 9
Requirements for registration
(a)
Meaning of ‘design’
(i)
Definition of ‘design’: s5 Designs Act 2003 (“DA”)
(ii)
in relation to a product


(iii)
Application for Type Font in name Microsoft (2007) 71 IPR 664
Re Wolanski’s Registered Design (1953) 88 CLR 278
‘product’: s6 DA
15
(iv)
‘visual features’: s7 DA


(v)
shape or configuration

Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
(vi)
‘overall appearance of the product’: see s5 DA
(vii)
monopoly in particular appearance


(b)
Dart Industries v Décor (1989) 15 IPR 403
Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors – (1987) 9 IPR 353
Re Wolanski’s Registered Design (1953) 88 CLR 278
Firmagroup Australia v Byrne & Davidson Doors – (1987) 9 IPR 353
Novelty and distinctiveness
(i)
Threshold statement under s15 DA
(ii)
‘prior art base’: s15(2) DA

prior public use of the design

prior publication in a document
o

(iii)
disclosure in an earlier design application
‘new and distinctive’: ss16-19 DA

‘new’ – not identical compared to prior art base: s16(1) DA

‘distinctive’ – not substantially similar in overall impression compared to
prior art base: s16(2) and s19 DA

“informed user”
o
o

Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (2008) 79 IPR 214
LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd (2009) 80 IPR 105
statement of newness and distinctiveness
o
(iv)
* J Rapee & Co Pty Ltd v Kas Cushions Pty Ltd (1990) 15 IPR 577)
Keller v LED Technologies (2010) 87 IPR 1

certain things to be disregarded: s17 DA

earlier use or publication of design as an artistic work: s18 DA
Designs excluded from registration

s43 DA and Reg 4.06 of Designs Regulations 2004
(2)
Outline of process of registration
(3)
Ownership
(a)
Who is entitled to seek registration: s13 DA


Courier Pete Pty Ltd v Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 735 – modular
rainwater tanks
Foster’s Australia Limited v Cash’s (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 527 (beer taps)
(b)
Ownership of registered design: s14 DA
(c)
Exclusive rights of registered owners: s10 DA
(d)
Assignment of interest in design: s11 DA
16
(e)
(4)
Term of registration: s46 DA
Infringement
(a)
Who may bring proceedings: s73(1) DA
(b)
When may proceedings be brought: s73(3) DA
(c)
Where may proceedings be commenced: s73(2) DA
(d)
Infringement by doing any exclusive rights of registered owners: s71 DA
(e)
Designs ‘substantially similar in overall impression’: s19 DA
(f)
Use of statement of newness and distinctiveness




(g)
Will it be easier for a Court to apply the new Act test compared to old Act test
(fraudulent or obvious imitation)?

(h)
Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd (2008) 79 IPR 236
(wrapdress)
Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (2008) 79 IPR 214 (wrapdress)
LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Elecspess Pty Ltd (2009) 80 IPR 105 (rear lights)
Multisteps Pty Limited v Source and Sell Pty Limited [2013] FCA 743 (fruit tubs)
Gram Engineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2013] FCA 508 (fencing panel)
Counterclaim for rectification of Register: s74 DA

Foggin v Lacey (2003) 57 IPR 225 (compare infringing product to design not
product)
(5)
Spare parts defence (s72 CA)
(6)
Remedies
(7)
(a)
Remedies under s75(1) DA
(b)
Defendant’s innocence and reasonable care: s75(2) DA
(c)
Additional damages: s75(3) DA
(d)
Importance of packaging: s75(4) DA
(e)
Relief from unjustified threats: ss77-81 DA
Issue of dual protection – copyright/design overlap
(a)
Relevant provisions: ss 74-77 CA
(b)
What is the overlap problem?
(c)
Definition of corresponding design: s74 CA
(d)
Copyright protection where corresponding design registered: s75 CA
(e)
Artistic works applied as unregistered industrial designs: s77 CA
(i)
copyright subsists in an artistic work
(ii)
corresponding design has been applied industrially



Reg 17 of Copyright Regulations 1969
Safe Sport Australia Pty Ltd v Puma Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 IPR 120
*Press-Form Pty Ltd v Henderson’s Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 113
17

(f)
(iii)
products are sold, let for hire
(iv)
corresponding design has not been registered under Designs Act
‘Works of artistic craftsmanship’ not included, but no statutory definition


(g)
Sheldon v Metrokane (2004) 61 IPR 1
*Burge v Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17; (2007) 234 ALR 204
Certain reproductions of artistic works do not infringe copyright: s77A CA


4.
Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd (2005) 67
IPR 497 at [221] (decision on ‘industrial application’ not disturbed in the
appeal reported at (2006) 70 IPR 1)
Polo/Lauren Company LP v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd (2008) 80 IPR 531
(meaning of ‘embodied in’)
Seafolly Pty Ltd v Fewstone Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 321
CIRCUIT LAYOUTS ACT 1989
This topic will only be addressed if time permits.
Topic 4 will not be assessed in the exam at the end of semester.



5.
Circuit Layouts Act (Cth) 1989
Avel v Wells (1992) 36 FCR 340
Nintendo Co v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134
PATENTS
Required reading




(1)
SGB: Ch 11-14
DMW 2012: Ch 12 – 15
PBA 2012: Part 3
RR 2012: Part 4
Origins and background
(a)
History



(b)
Establishment of the modern system
(c)
Rationale and objects of the patent system



(2)
Venetian Statute
Darcy v Allin (1602) Moore KB 671
Statute of Monopolies 1624
Powering Ideas: the innovation agenda for the 21st century
"Raising The Bar” patent reforms (effective 15 April 2013)
Productivity Commission inquiry into the compulsory licensing provisions in the
Patents Act 1990
Requirements for patentability
(a)
Requirements under s18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (PA)
18
(i)
Types of patents: standard and innovation
(ii)
Innovation patents

(iii)
s18 defines what is a ‘patentable invention’





(b)
manner of manufacture
novelty
inventive step
useful
not secretly used
Manner of manufacture
(i)
What is a ‘manner of manufacture’?







(ii)




(iii)


* International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33
FCR 218
* CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260
Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177
Business methods, schemes, systems




(v)
* Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611 (keratin treatment
for nails and hair)
* Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare (1994) 50 FCR 1 (sleep apnoea)
* Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding (2000) 46 IPR 553
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (breast cancer gene
sequence)
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (skin
disorder treatment)
Computer software

(iv)
Statute of Monopolies 1624
Re GEC Application (1942) 60 RPC 1
* National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents (1959)
102 CLR 252
Diamond v Diehr (1981) 450 US 175;
RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 871
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (skin
disorder treatment)
D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35
Human treatment exception

(c)
Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd (2009) 81 IPR 480;
Rolls-Royce Ltd’s Application [1963] RPC 251
* Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 51 IPR 327
* Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62
* Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150
(method for calculating an index for using in financial investing)
Living organisms and developments in biotechnology
Novelty
(i)
Relevant statutory provisions


(ii)
s7(1) PA
dictionary definitions of: prior art information, prior art base, document,
patent area
Quantum of disclosure: anticipation
19





(iii)
Publicly available






(iv)
Hill v Evans (1862) 4 De GF & J 288 (1862) 45 ER 1195
* Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd
(1993) 26 IPR 171 (trial judge’s (Hill J) discussion on anticipation)
* Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering (1990) 16 IPR 545
Meyer Taylor v Vicarr Industries (1977) 137 CLR 228
MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son [1998] 1466 FCA;
(1998) 43 IPR 287 (Sundberg J’s propositions on anticipation)
* Sunbeam Corp v Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd (1961) 35 ALJR
212 at 218
Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 12 ALJR 169
Fomento v Mentmore [1956] RPC 87
* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980)
144 CLR 253 (cannot mosaic)
Merck v Arrow Pharmaceuticals (2006) 68 IPR 511 (Lunar magazine to
selected hospitals and universities)
Dennison Manufacturing v Monarch Marketing Systems (1983) 1 IPR 431
Certain kinds of prior use/publication to be disregarded



s24 PA and reg 2.2 of Patent Regulations 1991
Showing, use or publication at a recognised exhibition
Publication in a paper read before a learned society
o

Working of the invention in public for purpose of reasonable trial
o
o


(d)
Ralph M Parsons Co (Beavon’s Application) [1978] FSR 226
Longworth v Emerton (1951) 83 CLR 539
Newall & Elliott (1858) 4 CBNS 269; (1858) 140 ER 1087
Non-consensual disclosure
12 month ‘grace period’ (from 1 April 2002)
Inventive step
(i)
Relevant statutory provisions


(ii)
How is ‘inventive step’ assessed? When is an invention obvious?






(iii)
ss7(2), 7(3) PA
Dictionary definitions of: prior art base, prior art information, patent area
* APO Manual of Practice and Procedure, Vol 2 at 4.1.4-4.1.5
* Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148
CLR 262 at 286
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013]
FCA 279
Relevance of hindsight considerations: see Lockwood v Doric [2007] 235
CLR 202
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] HCA 3
Common general knowledge: the relevant prior art knowledge base


* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980)
144 CLR 253
Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports (2006) 149 FCR 386
20
(iv)
‘CGK + 1’: the operation of s7(3) PA




(e)
Useful/Utility

(f)
Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289
Secret use

(g)
* Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 75 (Full Fed Ct)
Internal objections: insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing
(i)
Insufficiency of description
(ii)
Ambiguity of claims
(iii)
Fair basing






(h)
(4)
Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] 217
CLR 274
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99
“Towards A Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System” – Consultation
Paper, November 2009
Intellectual Property (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 – similar to section 72(1)(c)
of English Patents Act
disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete
enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant
art; and the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention
claim or claims must be clear and succinct and [fairly based on the matter
described] supported by matter disclosed in the specification
Other grounds of invalidity





(3)
Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited (2002) 54 IPR 449
*Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21; 235 ALR 202.
“Towards A Stronger and More Efficient IP Rights System” – Consultation
Paper, November 2009
Intellectual Property (Raising the Bar) Act 2012: combine any piece of prior
art with common general knowledge if the skilled addressee could
reasonably be expected to combine the two, not just the prior art that the
skilled addressee could be reasonably expected to have found
s138 PA
s18(2) PA – human beings
Re Woo-Suk Hwang [2004] AIPC 92-031
Fertilitescentrum AB and Luminis Pty Ltd (2004) 62 IPR 420
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics
The application process and the role of patent attorneys
(a)
The role of the patent attorney: ss200, 201 PA
(b)
The application process
Ownership and exploitation of rights
(a)
Who may be granted a patent: s15 PA
21



(5)
Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9
University of Western Australia v Gray (2009) 82 IPR 206
Exclusive ‘exploitation’ rights of patent owner: s13 PA
(b)
Assignment of interest in patent: s14 PA
(c)
Term of grant: s67 (standard patent), s68 (innovation patent)
(d)
Register: s187
(e)
Compulsory licences: s133
(f)
Crown Use: s163
Infringement
(a)
(b)
Relevant statutory provisions
(i)
Who may bring proceedings: ss120(2), (3) PA
(ii)
When may proceedings be brought: s120(4) PA
(iii)
Where may proceedings be commenced: s120(1) PA
(iv)
Counterclaim for revocation of patent: s121 PA
(v)
Infringement by doing any of the patentee ‘exploitation’ rights: s13 PA, Dictionary
definition of ‘exploit'
How is infringement determined?
(i)
Scope of claim


(ii)
Construction of patent claims – approaches to construction (literal, purposive, pith
and marrow)

(iii)
Windsurfting International v Petit (1984) 2 NSWLR 196
Contributory infringement: s117 PA



(d)
Dunlop Pneumatic Typre v David Moseley (1904) 21 RPC 274
Bedford Industries v Pinefair (1999) 42 IPR 330
Sell

(c)
Catnic Components v Hill and Smith [1982] RPC 183; [1978] FSR 405
Make


(iv)
*Décor Corporation v Dart Industries (1988) 13 IPR 385
Kinabulu Invstments v Barron and Rawson [2008] FCAFC 178 at [44] –[45]
Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co (2000) 46 IPR 553
Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 78 IPR 225
Defences to infringement: s118, s119, s119A, 119B, 119C PA


Merck KGAA v Integra Life Sciences Limited (June 2005) US Supreme Court
(defence to patent infringement in US: research exemption)
“Raising the Bar” defences – experimental purposes, obtaining regulatory
approval
22
(6)
Remedies
(7)
(a)
Remedies under s122 PA
(b)
Innocent infringement: s123(1) PA
(c)
Importance of packaging: s123(2) PA
(d)
Relief from unjustified threats: s128 PA
Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994
This topic will only be addressed if time permits. This part of Topic 5 will not be assessed in the exam.

Sun World Inc v Registrar of Plant Variety Rights (1997) 75 FCR 528

Grain Pool of WA v Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 475; 46 IPR 515
6.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Reading from Prescribed Materials:




(1)
(2)
SGB: Ch 3, 4
DMW 2012: Ch 11
PBA: Ch 15
RR 2012: Ch 11
Background to breach of confidence action
(a)
Protection of ideas and information
(b)
Information is not property

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 414

Farah Constructions v Say Dee (2007) 230 CLR 89
(c)
Jurisdictional basis for breach of confidence action
(d)
Contractual and equitable bases can co-exist: Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra
Corporation [2010] FCAFC 21; (2010) 265 ALR 281
Equitable action for breach of confidence
(a)
Origins and elements of the equitable action
(i)
(ii)
Origins

Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 47 ER 1302

Personal – Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302

Government – Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39
Elements of the modern action

* Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Coll of Customs for Vic (1987) 14 FCR
434

Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) 65 RPC 203

* Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) [1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587
23

(iii)
Information identified with specificity

(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(b)
* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to
Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291
Information must have necessary quality of confidence

* Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 414

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172; (2007) 73 IPR
326;

Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd [1967] RPC 375
(springboard)
Information must be provided in circumstances imposing an obligation of
confidence

* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to
Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291

Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) [1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587 (moped)

TF Industrial Pty Ltd v Career Tech Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1303
(database)

Franklin v Giddins [1978] Qd R 72; 1B IPR 807 (steal nectarine cuttings)

Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Limited v
Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 494

Armstrong Strategic Management & Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense
Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (2012) 295 ALR 348
Breach of confidence/Unconscionable use or disclosure

(vii)
* Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to
Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291
Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department
of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291
Position of third parties

Wheatley v Bell [1982] 2 NSWLR 544

Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469
Defences – the iniquity rule and public interest defence
(i)
(ii)
The iniquity rule

Gartside v Outram (1856) 26 LJ Ch 113

Castrol Australia v Emtech Associates (1980) 51 FLR 184

Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Coll of Customs for Vic (1987) 14 FCR 434
Public interest defence: balancing competing public interests

Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417

Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001)
208 CLR 199 at 224 (per Gleeson CJ)
24
(iii)
(c)
Competing public interests in context of government papers, information and
beyond

* Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39

A-G (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia (1988) 165 CLR 30

* Minister for Mineral Resources v Newcastle Newspapers (1998) 40 IPR
403

National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd (NRMA) v Geeson (2001)
39 ACSR 401; [2001] NSWSC 832; Appeal dismissed in [2001] NSWCA
343 (11/10/01)
Remedies
(i)
injunction
(ii)
delivery up
(iii)
constructive trust

(3)
LAC Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR 4th
14; (1989) 16 IPR 27
(iv)
account of profits
(v)
quantum meruit
(vi)
equitable compensation

* Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd [1980] VR 224

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR 4th 577

Notion of the springboard: Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd
[1967] RPC 375
Contractual obligations of confidence
(a)
Co-existence of equity and contract principles: Optus Networks Ltd v Telstra
Corporation Ltd [2010] FCAFC 21
(b)
Contractual duties: express or implied
(i)
Common law contractual duties: express or implied
(ii)
Implied equitable duty to serve employer with good faith



(c)
Scope of obligation

(d)
Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172; (2007) 73 IPR
326
Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410
Codelfa Constructions v State Rail Authority NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 185 ALR 152
Example context: Employees and restraints of trade

* Faccenda Chicken v Fowler [1985] 1 All ER 724

* Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317; (1991) 20 IPR 481 (NSW CA)

Bluescope Steel v Kelly [2007] FCA 517 (12 April 2007) at [88]-[90] regarding
‘know-how’

*Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172; (2007) 73 IPR 326

Printers and Finishers Ltd v Holloway
25
7.
BUSINESS REPUTATION
Reading from Prescribed Materials




SGB: Ch 16, 17, 18.
DMW 2012: Ch 2
PBA 2012: Ch 12
RR 2012: Ch 16
PASSING OFF
(1)
Origins of passing off

(2)
(3)
Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199
Elements of the Action

*Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731

*Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193
1st Requirement: Reputation
(a)
What commercial activities are covered?
(b)
How is reputation fixed in the minds of consumers?

(c)
*Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851
How is reputation proved?

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59
(d)
Need for the public to associate product/service with a particular ‘source’
(e)
Is local business activity required?
(f)
(g)

* Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193

BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59
The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words

*McCain Foods v County Fair Foods (1981) RPC 69 (oven chips)

*Hornsby Building Information Centre v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978)
140 CLR 216

BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363

Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014]
FCAFC 87
Indicia of reputation
(i)
Name

(ii)
Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN (Pacific) Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 61; (2000) 49 IPR
303
Pseudonym
26

(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(4)
Sykes v John Fairfax (“Pierpont”) 1977 1 NSWLR 415
Get-up

Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA
1228 (Conti J 3/9/2001)

Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (1990) 17 IRR 1 (“Jif lemon”)

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) 52 IPR 419 (Thomas Shop)
Fictitious Character

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd (2003) 57
IPR 453 (Goggomobil case)

Twentieth Century Fox v Lion Nathan (Duff Beer) (1996) 34 IPR 247

Hogan v Pacific Dunlop (Crocodile Dundee) (1989) 14 IPR 398
Colours and Shapes

Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd (2009) 84 IPR 12 (Malt
Balls)

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) 52 IPR 419
2nd Requirement: Misrepresentation
(a)
Types of misrepresentation
(i)
(ii)
(b)
Source of product, substitution of product, quality of product

*Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2
NSWLR 851

*Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (1990) 17 IRR 1

Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Limited [1960] Ch 263

REA Group Ltd v Real Estate 1 Ltd [2013] FCA 559

Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd v Tabellz Pty Ltd [2013]
FCA 1019

Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited
[2014] FCAFC 87
Association, sponsorship, endorsement

Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 (ballroom
dancers)

Honey v Australian Airlines and House of Tabor Inc (Gary Honey athlete)
1990 18 IPR 185

Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation (Kieren Perkins swimmer) 1996 36
IPR 46

McIlhenny v Blue Yonder Holdings (1997) 39 IPR 187

Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolates Pty Ltd (No.8)
[2008] FCA 470 (11 April 2008)

Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited
[2014] FCAFC 87
What is the effect of ‘intention to deceive’?
27

(c)
(d)
(e)
Misrepresentation in the context of ‘character merchandising’

* Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited (1989) ATPR 40-948 (Crocodile Dundee)

*Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 (ballroom
dancers)

*Hogan v Koala Dundee (1988) 83 ALR 187; 12 IPR 508

*Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd
(1996) 66 FCR 451 (Duff Beer case)
Disclaimers

*Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd
(1996) 66 FCR 451 (Duff Beer case)

Miler v Britt Allcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) 52 IPR 419;

Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014]
FCAFC 87
Distinguish “misappropriation” from “misrepresentation”

(5)
Intention to deceive is not required: Australian Woollen Mills v FS Walton & Co
(1937) 58 CLR 641
ambush marketing: Nike “London Calling” advertisement during London 2012
Olympic Games
3rd Requirement: Damage

Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354

Passing off trumps trademark: CI JI Family Pty Limited v National Australian Nappies
(NAN) Pty Limited [2014] FCA 79
RELATED STATUTORY ACTIONS
1.
Relevant statutes and provisions


2.
Sections 52 and 53, Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (pre-1 January 2011)
Sections 18 and 29, Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer
Act 2010 (Cth) and Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Misleading and deceptive conduct – the statutory action




Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 16 IPR 431 at 440 (Hill J)
Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481
Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd v Tabellz Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1019
(steel roof sheets)
(i)
‘trade or commerce’



(ii)
Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594
Re Ku-Ring-Gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd
Argy v Blunt & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112
Identify the ‘misrepresentation’ said to arise
28


(iii)
‘misleading or deceptive’






Who must be misled or deceived?
How is the relevant class identified?
Mere confusion is not enough
Evidence of actual deception is persuasive but not essential
Court must decide if a reasonably significant number of consumers in the class
would be likely to be misled or deceived
Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000) 46 IPR 481
(iv)
Intention to deceive is not required
(v)
Who made the representation

(vi)
3.
Identifying what the misrepresentation might be also involves considering what
the reputation is of the plaintiff’s good/service
Does reputation need to be established in all cases? Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng
[2007] FCA 1922 at [34].
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1
An additional provision:

s53 TPA (old law);

s29 in Australian Consumer Law (ACL), Sch 2 of CCA (new law)
Liability of individuals under TPA/CCA (ACL)



s75B TPA; s224 ACL
Houghton v Arms (2006) 231 ALR 534
Sony Music Entertainment (Aust) Ltd v CEL Music Pty Ltd (in liq) (2002) 54 IPR 289
Remedies:


8.
Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 80, 82, 87, 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)
ACL ss 233-236; see generally Part 5-2 ‘Remedies’; CCA ss 87CB-87CI (proportionate
liability)
TRADE MARKS
Required reading from Prescribed Materials




(1)
SGB: Ch 19, 20
DMW 2012: Ch 3, 4
PBA: Part 4
RR 2012: Part 5
Origins of trade mark system

(2)
Bakers Marking Law 1266
Registration procedure


application
acceptance or rejection by IP Australia
29



(3)
advertise acceptance
opposition
registration
What is a trade mark?
(a)
Definition of trade mark

(b)
Case law on what constitutes a trade mark








(c)
Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union (1908) 6 CLR 469
Smith Kline French (Australia) Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks (1967) 116
CLR 628
Re Coca Cola Trade Marks [1986] RPC 421
* Coca Cola v All Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481
* Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd
(2000) 48 IPR 257
* Kenman Kandy v Registrar of Trade Marks (2001) 52 IPR 137
* Chocolaterie Guylian NV v Registrar of Trade Marks [2009] FCA 891 (18 August
2009)
Baird J, “The Registrability of Functional Shape Marks” (2002) 13 AIPJ 218
Classes of designated goods and services

(4)
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (“TMA”): s17 – ‘trade mark’; s6 – ‘sign’
Nice Classification – 45 classes
Other requirements incorporated within s17
(a)
(b)
Requirement of ‘use or intended to be used’

‘use’ - s7 TMA

*Imperial Group Limited v Phillip Morris & Co Limited [1980] 1 FSR 146 (‘Nerit’)

defensive marks - s185 TMA
Trade mark must distinguish goods or services
(i)
notion of ‘capability to distinguish’
(ii)
benefits of invented words, coined expressions, concocted shapes
(iii)
effect of s41 TMA: ways that a trade mark can be ‘capable of distinguishing’:
(iv)

s41(3) – trade mark is ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’

s41(5) – trade mark is to some extent ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’

s41(6) – trade mark is not ‘inherently adapted to distinguish’ but becomes
so through ‘use’
cases on ‘capability to distinguish’:

Registrar of Trade Marks v W & G Du Cros Ltd [1913] AC 624

*Mark Foy’s Limited v Davies Coop & Co Limited (1956) 95 CLR 190 (‘Tub
Happy’)

*Howard Auto Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Limited (1946) 72
CLR 175 (‘Rohoe’)

Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511
(‘Michigan’)
30
(c)
* Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 40 IPR 498 (‘Oregon’)

Woolworths Ltd v BP Plc (2006) FCAFC 132 (colour green’) (HC Special
Leave application dismissed)

Ocean Spray Cranberries v Registrar TM (Cranberry Classic) (2000) 47
IPR 579

Sports Warehouse v Fry Consulting (Tennis Warehouse) (2010 186 FCR
519; (2010) 87 IPR 300 (Kenny J)

Crazy Ron's Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty
Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 212;

Modena Trading Pty Ltd v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (HC pending – Full
Federal Court [2013] FCAFC 110 (foreign words “oro” and “cinque stelle” –
Molinari v Vittoria coffee)

Mastronardi Produce Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1021
(Zima)
Dealt with in course of trade

(5)

Re New York Yacht Club Application
Certain ‘signs’ will not be registered – grounds for rejection of an application
Part 4 Div 2 TMA (ss39-44) sets out the grounds upon which an application will be rejected:
(a)
s39 – mark contains certain signs (ie. prescribed signs)
(b)
s40 – mark cannot be represented graphically
(c)
s41 – mark does not distinguish applicant’s goods and services

(d)
s42 – mark is scandalous or contrary to law
(e)
s43 – mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion
(f)
(6)
Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV [2009] FCA 428 (30 April 2009)

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91
CLR 592

Pfizer Products Inc v Karam [2006] FCA 1663 at [27] (1 December 2006)

Scotch Whisky Association v De Witt [2007] FCA 1649 at [48]-[63]

McCorquodale v Masterton (2004) 63 IPR 592 (Diana’s Legacy in Roses)

Big Country Developments Pty Ltd v TGI Friday's Inc (2000) IPR 513
s44 – mark is identical etc to trade mark

Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91
CLR 592

Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411
Grounds for opposition to registration
Part 5 Div 2 TMA (ss57-62A) sets out the grounds upon which a trade mark application can be
opposed:
(a)
s57 - same grounds as for rejection of application under Part 4 Div 2, except s40
(b)
s58 – applicant not owner of mark
31

(c)
s58A – opponent’s earlier use of similar trade mark (a new ground from 23/10/06))
(d)
s59 – applicant not intending to use mark
(e)

Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP (2010) 86 IPR 437

Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (Tastee Freez) (1960) 103 CLR 391
s60 – trade mark similar to mark that has acquired a reputation (amended from
23/10/06)

(7)
DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478
(f)
s61 – mark consists of a false geographical indication
(g)
s62 – application is defective
(h)
s62A – application made in bad faith (a new ground from 23/10/06)

Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) (2012) 94 IPR 551 [2012]
FCA 81 (Dodds-Streeton J)

DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478
Ownership, rights, assignment and licensing
(a)
(b)
(c)
(8)
Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Rohm & Haas Co (1949) 78 CLR 601
Who can make an application

s27 TMA

*Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391

Moorgate Tobacco Co Limited v Phillip Morris Limited (No 2) (1984) 59 ALJR 77
Rights of registered owner

s20 – rights given by registration

s21 – trade mark is personal property

s22 – power of registered owner to deal with trade mark
Licensing – the ‘authorised user’

ss6, 8 – definition of ‘authorised use’

s26 – powers of authorised user

E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (2010) 86 IPR 224
Infringement
(a)
Overview of infringement principles
(i)
Key provision: s120 TMA
(ii)
Categories of infringement under s120 TMA:
(iii)
(b)

s120(1): infringing use in relation to registered goods or services

s120(2): infringing use in relation to ‘same description’ or closely related
goods or services

s120(3): infringement of well-known trade marks
Infringing mark must be ‘substantially identical or deceptively similar’
Requirement that there is ‘use’ by the infringer as a trade mark
32







(c)
Secondary dealings (including parallel imports)





(d)
Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR
407
Coca Cola Distributors v All Fect Distributors Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481
*Johnson & Johnson Australia v Sterling Pharmaceuticals (1991) 21 IPR 1
*Top Heavy v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282
Pepsico Australia Pty Limited (t/a Frito-Lay) v Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited (1996)
33 IPR 161
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000)
48 IPR 257
E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (2010) 86 IPR 224
s123 TMA
*R A & A Bailey & Co Limited v Boccaccio Pty Limited (1986) 6 IPR 279
Transport Tyre Sales Pty Ltd v Montana Tyres and Rims Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR
481 at [40]-[54]
Polo/Lauren Company LP v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 49 (trial); [2008]
FCAFC 196 (appeal)
Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130
Tests of ‘substantially identical’ or ‘deceptively similar’
(i)
‘substantially identical’

(ii)
‘deceptively similar’











(e)
* Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited
(1963) CLR 407
* Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641
Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co Ltd (1994) 28 IPR 193
Polaroid Corporation v Sole N Pty Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 49
Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited
(1954) 91 CLR 592
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths (1999) 45 IPR 411 (‘Woolworths
Metro’)
Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Wandella Pet Foods Pty Ltd (2006) 69 IPR 243
(‘Schmackos’)
Beecham Group Plc v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 838 (22 June
2005) (‘Macleans’)
Torpedoes Sportswear Pty Ltd v Thorpedo Enterprises Pty Ltd [2003] FCA
901 (27 August 2003)
Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Ltd v Mobileworld Communications Pty
Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 212
Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique v Senator Automation Pty Ltd [2007] FCA
1391 (18 July 2007)
Closely related services/closely related goods



(9)
* Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited
(1963) CLR 407
Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91
CLR 592
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411 (Woolworths
Metro)
Caterpillar Loader Hire (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Caterpillar Tractor Co (1983) 48 ALR
511
Defences to infringement
33
(10)
(11)
(a)
s122 – use in ‘good faith’ and other exemptions (including honest concurrent use;
s122(1)(f))
(b)
McCormick & Company Inc v McCormick (2000) 51 IPR 102 (honest concurrent use)
(c)
s124 – prior and continuous use
Remedies for infringement
(a)
s20(2) – registered owner can commence proceedings
(b)
s26(1)(b) – authorised user entitled to commence proceedings in certain circumstances
(c)
s125 – where relief can be sought
(d)
s126 – relief that can be claimed: injunction, account of profits or damages
(e)
s127 – special case where plaintiff not entitled to damages
(f)
Pt 14 TMA – criminal procedures and penalties for counterfeiting
(g)
s129 – groundless threats
Amendment and cancellation of registration
(a)
Pt 8 Div 1 – action by Registrar of Trade Marks
(b)
Pt 8 Div 2 – action by Court
COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENT
In Intellectual Property, there is only ONE ASSIGNMENT. This assignment is compulsory and
must be submitted by all students. Students must submit the assignment by the due date. A
pass mark is 50%. Refer to the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments for the
assignment grading and assessment criteria. Students who fail to satisfy the compulsory
requirement will be notified through the Results screen on the Webcampus before the
examination period of their ineligibility to sit the examination in this subject. The maximum word
limit for the assignment is 2000 words (inclusive of all footnotes but not bibliography).
The rules regarding the presentation of assignments and instructions on how to submit an assignment
are set out in the LEC Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments which can be
accessed on the LEC Webcampus. Please read this guide carefully before completing and submitting
an assignment.
The completed assignment should be lodged through the LEC Webcampus, arriving by 11:59pm on the
following date:
Compulsory Assignment
Tuesday 12 July 2016
(Week 8)
34
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
To obtain the Intellectual Property assignment questions for the Winter Session 2016, please
follow the instructions below:
1.
Register online with the LEC (see page 26 of the Course Information Handbook for detailed
instructions). Once you have registered, you will have access to all the facilities on the LEC
Webcampus.
2.
Then go into the Webcampus, select the Course Materials section and click on the link to the
assignment questions for this subject.
SAMPLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
In May of this year, the Carlington Blues Football Club sacked its embattled coach, Mike Barleyhouse.
Carlington had been sitting at the bottom of the ladder with only one win in eight games.
Megan Hale, a computer programmer (and part-time model), is one of Carlington’s biggest supporters.
She is fed up with Carlington’s recent string of unsuitable coaches and wants to see Carlington win a
flag so badly that she develops BLUES CLUES, a computer program for rating potential coaches.
BLUES CLUES works as follows:
(a)
it receives from members of a selection panel (via an online evaluation form), for each coaching
candidate, assigned values from 1 to 10 for the following categories: playing experience,
coaching experience, emotional intelligence, humility, ingenuity, vision, ability to look
fashionable in a navy blue tracksuit and ability to charm journalists at a press conference
(something the often rude and condescending Barleyhouse was incapable of doing);
(b)
it inputs the values into an algorithm with an assigned weight for each of the categories (the last
two set out above being rated the highest) which calculates a total score from 1 to 100 for each
coaching candidate; and
(c)
it generates a list of the coaching candidates from highest to lowest scores in a spreadsheet, which
also provides information such as the coaches’ current positions and salaries.
While she was developing BLUES CLUES, Megan read an article from last year about how a Japanese
soccer team selected its coach according to a computer-generated ranking that was based on the
results of an online fan survey. The fans were provided a list of potential coaches and were asked to
assign a value from 1 to 10 for each coach based on his/her perceived suitability. The coaches were
then ranked according to their total scores (from highest to lowest). At the time Megan also recalled the
2011 movie “Honeyball” in which an algorithm used to determine the true value of baseball players
assigned more weight to non-traditional statistics such as the player’s speed and “NERD” (i.e.,
quantitative measure of the aesthetic appeal of the player), as opposed to, for example, the player’s
batting average.
Megan files a provisional patent application for BLUES CLUES.
A week later, upon learning of BLUES CLUES at Megan’s photo shoot for Carlington’s new line of
licensed swimwear, the Carlington President hands Megan a list of the twenty candidates (the
“Candidates”) that have confidentially applied for Carlington’s vacant coaching position, as well as
contact information for the members of the selection panel. He asks her to provide to each of the
members an online evaluation form that includes all of the Candidates and to have the values received
from the members input to BLUES CLUES. He further asks her to present the results generated by
35
BLUES CLUES at the next meeting of the selection panel. However, he instructs her to find an
interesting way to present the results so that the members remain engaged during the presentation.
Megan modifies BLUES CLUES to include an additional feature (the “Add-On”) that produces, on a big
screen and in video game style, an animated version of each of the Candidates kicking a ball at the goal
from 50 metres out. The program corresponds the Candidate’s success at kicking the goal to the
Candidate’s rating; for example, a 95-rated Candidate’s ball will go straight through the centre posts and
into the crowd (with cheering sound effects) and a 60-rated Candidate’s ball will fall short and wide (with
a collective sigh sound effect).
For the Add-On, Megan has uploaded photos of the Candidates from their current clubs’ web sites and
has utilised cut-outs of their faces for the animated figures. She has also uploaded a photo of a
Carlington cap from the official club web store and placed copies of it on the heads of the animated
figures. She has also included recordings of crowd sound effects that she obtained from a broadcast of
a recent game on the FOXY FOOTY channel.
Megan files a standard patent application (including BLUES CLUES in its original form plus the Add-On)
which claims priority from the provisional patent application.
A day before the meeting, after all of the evaluation forms have been completed and the received
values have been input to BLUES CLUES, BLUES CLUES generates a list of the Candidates ranked
from highest to lowest. At the top of the list are the words “Confidential – property of the Carlington
Football Club – for the eyes of authorised recipients only”. Megan intends to send an advance copy of
the list to the Carlington President (Mark LoBlue) but accidentally emails it to the wrong “Mark”, i.e.,
Mark Robinhood, a renowned football journalist. Robinhood immediately publishes a story entitled “No
More Blues About Carlington’s Coaching Dilemma” that identifies the top five Candidates on the list.
Megan wants to present each member of the selection panel with an action figure of the top Candidate
at the end of the presentation. She orders an action figure depicting a player wearing a black and white
guernsey and holding a ball as if just about to kick it from the online store of Collingbark (a competing
football club). She has exact replicas (except wearing the Carlington guernsey and bearing the facial
likeness of the top Candidate) made in China and shipped to her. Collingbark has a registered design
in Australia for its action figure. The members of the selection panel are so impressed by Megan’s
action figure that they then arrange for a replica of the action figure (except depicting the likeness of
Carlington’s top player) to be specially made and available for purchase.
Question 1
(a)
(25 marks)
Analyse whether Megan’s standard patent application for BLUES CLUES would be accepted
without the inclusion of the Add-On; and
(b) Analyse the effects (if any) that the inclusion of the Add-On in the standard patent
application would have on the acceptance of the application.
Question 2
(25 marks)
Identify all of the copyright materials in the Add-On that are not owned by Megan and, for each
of them, analyse whether Megan has infringed copyright and whether she has any defences to
copyright infringement.
Question 3
(10 marks)
Analyse the breach of confidence claim against Mark Robinhood.
36
Question 4
(10 marks)
Analyse Collingbark’s design infringement claims against both Megan and Carlington.
Question 5
(10 marks)
If the design drawings for the registered design were created by one of the staff at the marketing
company that Collingbark contracts to do marketing work for the club:
(a)
Will this affect Collingbark’s ability to bring the design infringement claims referred to
above?
(b) Does it matter whether or not Collingbark has expressly contracted to acquire the design
and copyright rights to the drawings?