IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (October 2009)

This was an unsuccessful appeal from a decision of Winkelmann J in the High Court allowing registration by the respondent, Mr Sintes, of a trade mark containing the words "family search"

Should United States antitrust law be applied to state trading enterprises in agricultural trade?

In a number of countries, State Trading Enterprises (“STEs”) control agricultural exports to the United States. For antitrust purposes, export STEs may be characterized as cartels of producers colluding to fix prices into importing country markets. This Article considers the legal and policy issues involved in applying United States antitrust law extraterritorially to STEs. In order to analyze these issues, this article uses STEs in the New Zealand dairy industry as a case study. First, the nature of STEs and their legal status in international trade law will be discussed. The Article next considers the potential liability of STEs in United States antitrust law, with particular reference to the New Zealand Dairy Board and its successor company, “Fonterra.” Because these STEs could be characterized as price-fixing cartels, depending on findings of market definition and market power, United States courts would have antitrust jurisdiction, unless this jurisdiction was excluded by considerations of comity. This Article also considers the broader issue of applying United States antitrust law to export STEs in their agricultural trade context, and the corresponding policy implications

Student Companion: Intellectual Property (March 2012)

This article discusses Intellectual Property cases(respectively): “Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly & Co.” [2011, UKSC 51] and“Fonterra Brands (Tip Top Investments) Ltd v Tip Top Restaurant Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-001011, 4 November 2011]

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (July 2012)

This article discusses Trade Marks, Fair Trading, Copyright & Patent Infringement cases(respectively): “Mars New Zealand Ltd v Heinz Watties Ltd” [2012, NZHC 591]; “GeoSmart Maps Ltd v GoSmart Foundation Ltd” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-003119, 2 September 2011], “Fisher & Paykel Financial Services Ltd v Karum Group LLC (no. 2)” [2012, NZHC 240], “Hamilton Maps Ltd v Hamilton News Operating as a division of APN News & Media Ltd” [DC Hamilton CIV 2011-019000874, 9 March 2012], “BayCity Technologies Ltd v Uttinger and DairySense LLC” [HC Auckland CIV 2006-404-7709, 21 March 2012] and “ Stewart v Franmara Inc” [2012, NZHC 548]

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (February 2008)

This Supreme Court decision was an appeal from the Court of Appeal decision in Stichting Lodestar v Austin, Nichols & Co. Inc.. The decision clarifies the approach that the High Court should take on an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner of Trade Marks on registration. The case was about the registration of "WILD GEESE" as a trade mark. The Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks initially held that Stichting Lodestar could register its "WILD GEESE" trade mark and that the mark was not deceptive or too similar to Austin, Nichols & Co Inc's "WILD TURKEY" trade mark. Austin, Nichols appealed to the High Court, and Gendall J allowed the appeal and refused registration. Stichting Lodestar successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal which granted the applications for registration. Austin, Nichols appealed to the Supreme Court

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (March 2012)

This article discusses Trade Marks cases(respectively): “Mars New Zealand Ltd v Roby Trustees Ltd” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-4613, 7 December 2011], “Fonterra Brands (Tip Top Investments) Ltd v Tip Top Restaurant Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-1011, 4 November 2011], “Adidas AG v Forrester Hilton” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-2751, 9 September 2011], “AA Insurance Ltd v AMI Insurance Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2010-485-2427, 2 November 2011], and “N V Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co v New Zealand Milk Brands Ltd” [2011, NZSC 113]

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (May 2009)

Oraka Technologies Ltd v Geostel Vision Ltd (HO, Hamilton CIV 2005-419-809, 18 February 2009, AllanJ) This was a copyright case about asparagus grading equipment

Copyright law, designs law, and the protection of public art and works on public display

Artworks, designs and architectural forms situated in public places implicate a number of interests. There is a public interest, which arises simply by virtue of situating a work in a public place. More broadly, there is a public interest that arises from the public investment in the work – investment both in terms of money and investment in terms of meaning as people identify with and relate to a particular work. Public works can become important to individuals as landmarks, icons, or locations for significant public or personal events

New Zealand designs law: The case for reform

This article is about New Zealand designs law, considered in an international and comparative context. It argues that New Zealand designs law is unsustainable and in need of reform. New Zealand is a small jurisdiction with a relatively small manufacturing industry, and New Zealand is a net importer of technology. Yet New Zealand operates a designs regime which is more protective of design than jurisdictions with proportionately much larger manufacturing and design based industries. Designs regimes in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and Europe are all less protective and more conducive to competition and innovation than the existing New Zealand regime. New Zealand operates a designs law regime which is over-protective, which excessively interferes with healthy competition to the disadvantage of consumers, and which imposes excessive burdens on second-comers and follow-on innovation. New Zealand's designs regime also significantly disadvantages New Zealand designers as compared with non-resident designers, and creates obstacles to exporters. The article reviews the international law framework for designs protection, and the regimes in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and Europe. It argues that reform of the New Zealand designs regime is now overdue, and reviews the reform proposals and processes that have been undertaken over the last two decades

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (September 2012)

This article discusses three trade mark cases: “Nutramarks, Inc v Nature’s Life NZ Ltd” [2012, NZHC 1134]; Le Cordon Bleu v Commissioner of Trade Marks” [2012, NZHC 724] and “Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2012, NZHC 1051]