Welcome back to the Intellectual Property Blog. Its written by the team here at Actuate IP, an Australian intellectual property practice. As patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys and intellectual property lawyers, we are specialists in the field but more importantly passionate about what we do. We draw inspiration from working with smart people and companies across a broad range of technologies.

Innovation drives growth and benefits society, so its a great motivator for us to be involved in this area of law.

As you can see, we have had a break over the past few months from contributions. But we can now safely say that there will now be regular weekly contributions (at least 2 to 3 contributions). We had positive feedback previously, so we will continue our fresh take and commentary on Australian IP developments and topics.

What can you expect? Commentary on intellectual property news that’s in the media, latest cases and areas of the law that have practical implications for business.

So we look forward to you following our blog. Also feel free to subscribe to this blog and/or our newsletter.

Colin Cheung

Dr. Francis Gurry, currently a Deputy Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has been nominated to become the next Director General of the organisation. Dr Gurry has over 20 years experience working for WIPO, working in all major area of the organisation. More information relating to the nomination of Dr. Gurry can be found in this government media release.
Dr. Gurry’s nomination will be submitted to the General Assembely of WIPO for confirmation in September/October of this year.

WIPO is the United Nations organisation that presides over international matters pertaining to Patents, Trademarks, Designs and other areas of Intellectual Property. WIPO manages filings made under the Patent Co-Operation Treaty and The Madrid Protocol for Trademarks.

In the Federal Court case of World of Technologies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Tempo (Aust) Pty Ltd 2007 FCA 114 it has held that a threat of infringement made by the Applicant against the Respondent was unjustified. In this case, the World of Technologies was the holder of an Australian Design Registration for a bagless vacuum cleaner. World of Technologies’ solicitors issued a letter of demand alleging infringement by Tempo of the Design Registration. At the time of sending the letter of demand the Design Registration had not as yet been certified.