IP Australian has recently released figures relating to filings, acceptance and fields that applicants are filing in. It provides some insight as to where Australian’s are heading regarding Intellectual Property.  Full results of their internal review can be found here.

In what is being described as a win (of sorts) for the online auction giant, eBay, a US District Court judge has gone against the grain of recent French court decisions and has found that eBay is not responsible for counterfeit goods being sold through its online auction websites. In a similar vein to the recent French decisions regarding fake Hermes handbags, Louis Vuitton goods and Christian Dior perfumery being sold on eBay, Tiffany (NJ) Inc. and Tiffany and Company argued that eBay had an obligation to investigate and control the illegal activities of people selling counterfeit Tiffany products through its auction sites. But US Disctrict Court Judge Sullivan found to the contrary, commenting that “eBay is not liable for contributory trademark infringement”, leaving Tiffany (the trade mark rights owner) to shoulder the burden of curtailing counterfeit trade on eBay websites through eBay’s VeRO program and similar.

The estate of author CS Lewis, have filed a complaint through WIPO’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) seeking transfer of the domain name www.NARNIA.mobi from an eleven year old Scottish boy who was to receive it as a birthday gift from his parents. He was a fan of the CS Lewis novels. His parents thought he’d like to use the domain as an e-mail address.

Coming up with an invention is a pretty impressive moment of anyone’s life. The temptation to tell all and sundry, ranging from family and friends to professional colleagues is huge. While getting that article about your life changing device in New Scientist might be very gratifying, it can close a lot of doors relating to your possible intellectual property. The novelty of your invention prior to filing a patent application is a frail thing, and can be ruined very quickly if you are not careful. Novelty of your invention is one of the three important elements that make your invention patentable, without it you will not be able to obtain patent protection

Following up on our recent article regarding the sale of fake luxury Hermes handbags by a woman on eBay which landed the online auction giant in trouble with the French courts, eBay has again been ordered to compensate another luxury brand company for sales of counterfeit goods conducted through its eBay.fr website.
This time around, the LVMH Group (which consists of Louis Vuitton Malletier and other Louis Vuitton companies) and Christian Dior were able to successfully show that sales of counterfeit goods on eBay “damaged their brand images and caused moral harm”. With LVMH being awarded 19.28m euro and Christian Dior 17.3m euro (not to mention some 3.25m euro to four other perfume brands including Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain), this was a much bigger blow to eBay than the 20,000 euro slap-on-the-wrist eBay received for the counterfeit Hermes handbags.
The legal arguments of Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior were similar to that of Hermes – essentially, because eBay did not do enough to prevent counterfeit products through its online auction site, eBay should therefore be held vicariously liable because it nonetheless takes a cut from each transaction.
With eBay set to appeal the decision, claiming that the ruling was not about counterfeiting but more about LVMH protecting “uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers every day”, it may be only a matter of time before copycat litigation around the world sees eBay’s current business model come under close examination.
That said, trade mark (and other intellectual property rights) owners may want to watch out for further decisions of this sort. If the momentum of these decisions is carried around the world, there is a possibility (however slight) for online intellectual property rights protection to get a little easier.

A French court recently convicted online auction giant eBay of selling counterfeit goods through its eBay.fr website and fined the company 20,000 euro (approximately AU$30,000).
The decision resulted from proceedings brought by French luxury products group, Hermes, in connection with listings on the French eBay website advertising the sale of three hand bags by a woman for a total of 3,000 euro. Two of the hand bags were counterfeit. eBay was found to be vicariously liable to the sale of the bags by the woman, who was also ordered to pay damages to Hermes. The amount of damages is not going to make eBay sweat by any means, but the Hermes decision could have repercussions for a number of other legal proceedings faced by eBay (most notably, fashion houses Louis Vuitton and Dior Couture are each currently seeking 20m euro and 17m euro respectively in compensation in a Paris commercial court for similar claims of complacent trafficking in pirated and stolen goods).

The Australian Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) has announced a review is to be made of what is considered patentable subject matter in Australia.  Specifically, they are going to look into the suitability and sufficiency of the manner of manufacture test as the threshold condition for determining what is patentable subject matter.  Also there is to be a review on the historical requirement that an invention not be generally inconvenient.  

Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 110 781 826) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2008] FCAFC 82 (28 May 2008); Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) [2006] FCA 1787 (20 December 2006)
A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has concluded that atorvastatin calcium, the active ingredient in the cholesterol-reduction drug, Lipitor, remains under patent protection, notwithstanding that a patent for a more specific form of that drug was found to be invalid.
Back in 1987, Warner-Lambert Company, LLC (better known as Pfizer Inc.) filed for and obtained patent rights in Australia covering all forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Broader Patent). Three years later, Warner-Lambert Company filed a more restricted patent claiming only the R enantiomer forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Enantiomer Patent). Some time later generics drugs manufacturer Ranbaxy began to make its own form of atorvastatin calcium, only using the R enantiomer form of the drug. In order to distribute the drug legally in Australia though, Ranbaxy needed to remove the obstacles that were the Warner-Lambert Company patents.