By-laws - Queensland Law Society

CASE WATCH
Case
No.1
Being a ‘Sex bomb’ one would think that ‘It’s gain from associating their products with the
not unusual’ for people to want to revel in Tom Jones persona, often associated with
your image. However, back on Tom Jones’ reveling in the hoards of ‘Lusty ladies’.
‘Green, green grass of home’ he has applied However, this registration may result in an
to have his image registered as a trade mark, unusual predicament: as for a trademark to
to prevent the unauthorised use of his image remain registered it must continue to be used
throughout the European Community. as it appears on the Register.
Could this mean that the registration may Accordingly, when Tom starts to contemplate
prevent ‘Some other guy’ from performing his ‘Younger days’ it may well eventuate that
his songs, or even impersonating him in Tom Jones will have to ‘Do what you gotta do’
public venues? Probably not, but it is and regularly frequent his plastic surgeon to
enough ‘To make a big man cry’! maintain his appearance and therefore
“So!” I hear you utter ‘ What’s new pussycat’ registration, or at least apply for a new
– this has been done before by Noel trademark. Soon we may well see all those
Gallagher, lead singer of British band Oasis. unscrupulous traders who would use Tom’s
Unlike Noel Gallagher, Tom Jones has a trade image without his authority to gain from those
mark image that has already stood the test of fans who cry “Tom Jones, we ‘Can’t stop
time. From a performance in a ‘ Spanish loving you’”, ‘ Sitting on the dock of the bay’
harlem’ to ‘ Burning down the house’ at a gig as a forlorn figure with a trade mark
in London, every ‘ Tom, Dick and Harry’ infringement judgment in hand and hear them
wants to ‘ Move closer’ to the spotlight and exclaim ‘ If I only knew ’.
Case
No.2
With the QLS Young Lawyers Committee
Tom Jones, I got your number: CTM 3526142
Hint: If you’ve never heard of Tom Jones – ask your Mum!
Harry Potter and the half-read prints
Copyright law and unauthorised publication
By Mark Metzling
By Mark Metzling
There was a spell of controversy recently on 7 July 2005, the publishers and JK was also illegal to use the book as a doorstop
when the Supreme Court of British Rowling sought an injunction to prevent not until such time as reading of the book was
Columbia handed down an injunction only the communication of this confidential permitted.
regarding 14 Harry Potter and the Half- information, but also the actual reading of
Blood Prince books which had been the confidential information.
accidentally sold prior to the official book W h e n p u r c h a s i n g t h e b o o k , t h e
release date. Under copyright law, the "unsuspecting" purchasers appear to have
owner of the copyright has the right to obtained legal ownership of the paper that
prevent the unauthorised publication of made up the book but not the legal right to
their book. The decision is reportedly read the contents of the book.
unusual as the injunction prevented Whilst it is understandable that the publisher
unidentified and innocent purchasers of and author would have suffered a
the books from reading the books. commercial loss if the books were passed
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on from reader to reader, or if the plot were
was printed and shipped in sealed boxes disclosed prior to the release date, it is
to vendors around the world and the questionable what irrecoverable loss was to
vendors were bound by contract not to be suffered through the reading of the book
publish the book, nor make the copyright by the initial purchaser.
work available to the public, until 12:01 Certainly there was no lost sale to be
am GMT July 16, 2005. incurred. Unfortunately for these
When The Real Canadian Superstore, a purchasers the injunction also extended to
grocery store in British Columbia, preventing them from making any use of the
inadvertently sold 14 copies of the book book that they purchased, so presumably it