2012 IPSANZ Annual Conference Seminar ... - List G Barristers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Relative advantages of s 52 TPA / s 18 ACL and passing off • Advantages of passing off over s 52 TPA / s 18 ACL: • Key remedies not available under TPA/ACL • Exemplary damages • Account of profits • Arguably not limited to “trade or commerce”
New Zealand perspective: s 9 FTA and passing off • Taylor Bros Ltd v Taylors Group Ltd [1988] 2 NZLR 1 • NZ Court of Appeal adopted Australian jurisprudence on s 52 TPA • Recent example of overlap: • Mechanical Plastics Corp v Holdfast NZ Ltd [<strong>2012</strong>] NZHC 592
Page 1 and 2: IPSANZ Annual Conference September
Page 3 and 4: Campomar Sociedad v Nike (2000) 200
Page 5 and 6: Statutory prohibitions against misl
Page 7 and 8: Overlap between s 52 TPA / s 18 ACL
Page 9: Relative advantages of s 52 TPA / s
Page 13 and 14: Passing off not limited to “trade
Page 21 and 22: Comparison: passing off and trade m
Page 23 and 24: Parkdale v Puxu (1982) 149 CLR 191
Page 25 and 26: Parkdale v Puxu (1982) 149 CLR 191
Page 27 and 28: Interlego v Croner (1992) 39 FCR 34
Page 29 and 30: Dr Martens Cases Dr Martens v Figgi
Page 31 and 32: Philips v Remington (2000) 100 FCR
Page 33 and 34: Sydneywide v Red Bull (2002) 55 IPR
Page 35 and 36: Mars Australia v Sweet Rewards (200
Page 37 and 38: Reconcile Red Bull and Maltesers de
Page 39 and 40: Reconcile Red Bull and Maltesers de
Page 41 and 42: Bodum v DKSH (2011) 280 ALR 639 •
Page 43 and 44: Playcorp v Bodum (2010) 84 IPR 542
Page 45 and 46: Bodum v DKSH (2011) 280 ALR 639 Gre
Page 47 and 48: Bodum v DKSH (2011) 280 ALR 639 •
Page 49 and 50: Reconcile product get-up decisions?

2012 IPSANZ Annual Conference Seminar ... - List G Barristers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?