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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Dr Martens Cases • Evidence from a retailer called by the respondents: … let us say we are pursuing a pair of $150 Doc Martens and then the mother has the audacity to actually [ask] how much they are and is told $150 and says: not on your nelly, nelly. We're not going down that path, thank you very much. Why are they so expensive and we say they're the original ones … and they tend to be that way as we immediately bring out the other one and say: however, mum, your problem is solved because we have the knock off and that's only $79.95 and she says: that will do me, Charlie, that's what you're getting.
Philips v Remington (2000) 100 FCR 90 • Philips sold the only triple headed rotary shaver until Remington introduced a shaver of similar design Burchett J (Hill and Branson JJ agreeing): • In view of the similarity of the products, it was “incumbent” on Remington to distinguish its shaver from Philips’ shaver • Remington shaver was clearly marked REMINGTON • “the Remington brand is prominent and virtually ubiquitous” • Rejected claim for passing off and s 52 TPA • “The public is thoroughly accustomed to competing brands of almost identical products, which may or may not have some link”
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 and 10: Relative advantages of s 52 TPA / s
Page 11 and 12: New Zealand perspective: s 9 FTA an
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: Dr Martens Cases Dr Martens v Figgi
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?