Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thanks to Maximilian Schubert for this one.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
There might be better names to twittersquat than the NSW Police?
infringement action for a sound mark in Australia.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Interflora v 'Marks & Sparks'
Once again, another good summary on IPKat.com
counterfeit items sold on eBay
The full decision is at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1094.html
As IPKat.com points out, there are a number of European decisions on this issue, with three decisions in favour of eBay (UK, France and Belgium), one decision in favour of L'Oréal (Germany) and one decision (from Spain) still outstanding.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
withstand legal challenges.
A local example of such a site can be seen at http://
www.connexsux.com/ (the target in case being Melbourne's suburban
railway operator, Connex)
Both the sources below present this information from the perspective
of a 'sucks' site creator, but the points are raised may also be of
value to organisations targeted by such sites.
From EFF and Eric Goldman.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Pre-emptive identification of employees likely to leave - is this sounding a bit like the movie Minority Report?
ran on the ABC
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The offensive conduct of these so called 'premium' providers - even
that label is totally off the mark - has been a particular bug bear of
mine for some time.
It is extremely unfortunate that the regulators, ACMA and for that
matter, the ACCC and/or state consumer protection bodies have taken so
long to react to this insidious conduct.
It will be interesting to see how well this code and statutory
provisions are monitored and enforced.
The providers behind this conduct should be fundamentally more
accessible and susceptible to regulatory measures and sanctions than
spammers, a bit of late night TV watching and reading of the right
print media by ACMA monitors will go a long way to dealing with the
These measures are a good start, but a few specific issues stood out
based on my quick review
- the advertising to under 15 year olds - difficult to define in
- the 'Premium' SMS barring rule - the option for customers to bar
premium SMS messages by July 2010 - should be the default setting on
mobile phones/mobile networks - many mobile carriers have their
customers services barred from international calls - requiring an 'opt
in' to access these services - a similar approach would work well in
regard to the ability to receive these 'premium' text messages.
- the enhanced 'double opt-in' procedure should require full
disclosure of all costs and opt out details
Now we just need some action on the conduct of the mobile phone
- use of the word 'caps' for products that are anything but, and;
- advertising 'included calls' as meaningless dollar amounts, rather
than actual minutes (as is the practice elsewhere - such as the USA).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
For a list of countries where Google will not investigate complaints
by trademark owners over the use of trademarks as keywords, see
So, in Australia Google seems to have retained the policy that
'advertisers might not be allowed to use certain trademarks as
keywords or as ad text per the request of the trademark owner'.
Thanks for the info Eric.
Having settled the BookSearch matter and facing actions over it's
aggregation of online news, Google keeps challenging copyright in a
Monday, May 11, 2009
reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Lionel Hutz poses the
question 'imagine a world without lawyers' - followed by vision of a
world full of happy people all getting on
maybe the lawyer jokes will taper off and we'll have blogger jokes
Another perfect example for students of the critical role definition
of market plays in competition law.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Graeme Samuel thinks it's a good idea.
I think this is a valid point - there are grounds for criminal
sanctions for certain misleading and deceptive and misleading conduct
under s 75AZC - but no general ground akin to s52.
Although from the article above, it seems the alleged Dodo
misrepresentations relate to price and would, on the face of it,
likely be caught by s75AZC(1)(g), covering conduct that amounts to a
false or misleading representation about the price of goods or services.
Maximum 10,000 penalty unit ($1,100,000) for a breach of these
Thursday, May 7, 2009
some interesting comments posted
I spent almost ten years as General Manager of one of the firms that
went into the Buzzle debacle.
Now a legal academic - with some teaching in corporations and research in insolvency law.
New worlds and old ones colliding ;-)
I had no idea Princess Mary of Denmark (as she now is) was involved in the episode.
Does that make me connected to royalty?
Here is the court details for today if anyone in Sydney is keen to have
a sticky beak
JUSTICE WHITE - COURT 12C, QUEENS SQUARE, 10:00am
BUZZLE OPERATIONS PTY LTD (IN LIQ) & 1 ORS
APPLE COMPUTER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & 9 ORS
Not sure how far they will get with the argument that Apple's Finance
Director, Jim Likidis, was a shadow director of Buzzle.
Interesting case to follow - I'll be trying to get some more details.