LawFont.com

Well, well, well – haven’t we all been painting the town purple this last couple of weeks! We’ve had the decisions of Justice Heerey on evidence in passing off/s 52 a little while ago, then last week his Honour’s final decision holding that Darrell Lea had not passed off its goods as Cadburys, nor confused nor misled consumers through use of the colour purple.

Now, IP Australia have put online their decision (watch it – 59 page pdf) in Darrell Lea’s opposition to Cadbury’s application to register a trade mark for the colour purple for chocolate. And while Darrell Lea have succeeded in opposing the registration, IP Australia have ruled that Cadbury can get a narrower registration for their colour purple for block chocolate and boxed chocolates. (more…)

Perhaps a glass less than half full? Perhaps empty?

The decision in the passing off/s 52 case brought by Cadbury against Darrell Lea, for DL’s use of the colour purple, has ended with (as a friend put it) Cadburys’ in something of a screaming heap. Cadbury was claiming that DL’s use of purple was misleading to consumers, or involved DL ‘passing off’ their goods as having some connection with Cadbury. It’s part of Cadbury’s general campaign to claim rights in the use of purple in selling chocolate: they also have trade mark applications on foot.

This battle in the general war has been lost. Nope, says Heerey J. No passing off. And some rather interesting comments about Cadbury’s use of the colour with potential salience in Cadbury’s trade mark application.

UPDATE: according to one of my commentators on Weatherall’s Law, the decision in the Trade Mark Office, where Cadbury’s application for a colour mark has been opposed, was handed down last Friday (hmmm, the day after the Judge’s decision was handed down…). I don’t, however, know the result and the decision isn’t yet online… If anyone does know, you can comment anonymously….
(more…)

Rothnie and Starkoff have both already noted that the Full Court has finally – 11 months after hearing the issue – granted leave to appeal in the Woolworths v BP case. Don’t get too excited – the appeal on the merits hasn’t been heard yet. Rothnie says it will likely be heard in August. As a decision on whether leave should have been granted, this case is an examplar of why you should get your procedure right and not just assume courts will fix any errors you make. But as a judgment which foreshadows what some of the issues in the appeal might be, this decision shows that some of the more fundamental issues currently in debate in trade mark law – in particular, just what rights you get as the owner of a ‘colour’ trade mark – could end up being canvassed. (more…)

Further evidence of the music industry adage “where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”: the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States has rejected an appeal by author Lewis Perdue in respect of his claims that Brown copied from two of Perdue’s works in writing The Da Vinci Code.

The case was not a simple copyright suit brought by Perdue; it was actually brought by Brown and his publisher, Random House, seeking a declaration of non-infringement. Perdue then counter-claimed for infringement. Brown succeeded at first instance, and the court of appeals just upheld that decision. The appeal decision is not available online, but most of the trial documents are, at a website maintained by the plaintiff Perdue. (more…)

Yochai Benkler has followed a trend set by such people as Larry Lessig and Michael Geist, and made his new book, The Wealth of Networks, available under a Creative Commons License. He’s gone further than Lessig or Geist, I think, and has put the ideas in the book – which are all about commons-based and cooperative production – to the test in the real world. It will be of interest to anyone who thinks the whole concept of the Commons, Creative Commons, and ‘social production’ are interesting. Comments on this method of publication, and the book itself, over the fold. (more…)

A colleague asked me the other day: if a US company decides to offer its TV shows for free online, but limits the downloads to US internet users only (blocking out us poor sucker Aussies), are they doing anything illegal?

The question stemmed from Wall Street Journal reports that Disney plans to offer popular tv shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives for free online (see also Michael Geist on this)

I couldn’t think of anything that would make this illegal. Possibly stupid, given the reported levels of TV-show downloading in Australia, but not illegal. But then I thought, well, in recent times, people commenting on this blog, and more particularly on Weatherall’s Law have proven the old blog adage that the comments generated by a post are often more interesting than the post itself – and that commenters collectively are smarter than the blogger.

So help me out here guys. Is there anything illegal going on in that scenario?

Subtitled: Law and, or, versus the Marketers: Evidence in the Cadburys v Darrell Lea case

I’ve been hearing rumours for some time now about evidence issues/problems/disasters in the recently concluded hearing in the case of Cadburys versus Darrell Lea, before Justice Heerey down here in the Vic Federal Court. So imagine my excitement when I realised there were no less than three decisions up on AustLII. They’re really interesting decisions because they say a lot about how law interacts with marketing people, marketing experts in these cases that are all about how consumers behave. Yes, I am a sad IP law geek. Never mind, I’ve come to terms with that. The decisions are:

• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 (which I’ll call the Cadburys Expert Decision). In this decision, Justice Heerey ruled that a whole bunch of expert evidence from a marketing expert was inadmissible;
• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 364 (I’ll call this one the Cadburys Survey Decision). In this decision, Justice Heerey ruled some survey-style evidence was admissible; and
• Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 386 (the Cadburys Hearsay decision). In this case, Heerey J ruled that some reports that included statements from consumers about how they reacted to purple weren’t admissible to prove the truth of those statements.

I was fascinated, partly because the Judge has chosen to exclude a whole lot of stuff (which must annoy the Cadburys lawyers), and partly because I’m currently teaching Trade Mark Law to undergraduate students. Of course, one thing you spend time talking about in such a course is matters of proof. Since I’ve had to dissect the reasoning for my students, I want to spend a little time in this post putting my thoughts out there. Comments welcome of course! (more…)

Yes, all the copyright experts I know were predicting this result: London’s High Court has ruled that Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown did not infringe the copyright of an earlier book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. The decision seems to affirm a basic fact: copyright does not protect ideas or facts, and an author can draw on ideas, facts, and even fictitious histories in writing new work. A good, if obvious result, it seems to me. And now the pliaintiffs end up with a very nasty costs bill: 85 per cent of Random House’s legal costs, which could top 1 million pounds ($A2.4 million).

The judge clearly did not believe the plaintiffs. According to The Age,

In the end,

• BBC story here
• The Age story here
• The decision has now been published, here

Is Internet filtering ever justified?

Australian Labor party leader Kim Beazley has been pushing for Internet filtering at the ISP level, to provide a “clean feed” for Australian families. The idea would be for ISPs to blacklist particular websites that are known to have pornographic content, so that children will not be exposed to objectionable content. (more…)

There is a very interesting article in The New York Times about Microsoft‘s current difficulties in releasing Vista–the successor to operating system Windows XP. It’s been five years since Windows XP was released. In the same time, Apple has been much more nimble in the operating system market, releasing four new versions of its operating system. Meanwhile, Windows users wait, as their systems run slower and slower.

So what is the problem? According to this article, the problem is at least in part Microsoft’s bundling strategy come back to bite. Windows is written for a range of devices–that takes a lot of code. Moreover, the approach towards coding has created a problem as well. When Apple released OS X, the program was a radical departure from the previous operating system. Using applications written to work with OS 9 involved booting up the old operating system separately. By contrast, Microsoft has decided to ensure compatibility, in which new versions of Windows can be used with applications written for old versions. But this functionality has resulted in an operating system that is difficult and complicated to update, and often awkward to use.

Microsoft is trying to do the right thing by its users. It seems, however, that more radical innovation has served Apple better in recent years–just take a look at its share price.

Coverage today of a judgment, handed down yesterday, in the Kazaa proceedings. For those who joined us late (are there any of you?), Kazaa (P2P Software provider) has been sued for authorising infringement of copyright by users of the P2P file-sharing software. Justice Wilcox handed down judgment last year, holding they were liable for authorisation, and an appeal from that judgment was heard in early February. Judgment in the appeal is reserved. In the meantime, however, there’s proceedings going on for contempt, because the trial judge did not stay his injunction pending the appeal. That is, Kazaa was ordered, in the meantime, to take steps to stop authorising infringement. And there’s a live question as to whether they’ve done enough. The judgment raises some really interesting questions about contempt. More, much more, over the fold. (more…)

From GrokLaw, the District Court of Amsterdam has upheld the validity of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license. Adam Curry, a well-known media figure now living in Holland, posted some pictures of his family on photo-sharing site Flickr (his profile appears to be here). The photos carried a notice saying “This photo is public”, and were published under a non-commercial Creative Commons licence. A Dutch magazine reprinted four of the photos in a story on Curry and his children. (more…)

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down an interesting judgment on when deleting files might amount to a crime. The plaintiff, IAC, had employed the defendant, Citrin, to identify properties that IAC might want to acquire. It issued him a laptop computer he was to use to record data collected in the course of his employment.

Citrin decided to go into business for himself, and he returned his laptop to IAC — with, apparently, all information on it securely deleted, such that it was irrecoverable. This, IAC suspected, included data that implicated Citrin in breach of his employment contract. IAC brought suit under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but its suit was dismissed for failure to state a case. (more…)

This issue of “What is…?” provides a brief look at the emerging technology of datacasting, and considers some of the regulatory and legal issues that are raised by this new form of broadcasting. In Australia the ability to datacast is becoming a hot topic, not least because it is expected to be included in the upcoming media industry reforms. (more…)

In a significant shift from its jurisprudence of the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the presumption that a patent confers market power on the holder of that patent. In Illinois Tool Works Inc. v Independent Ink, Inc. (No. 04-1329, decided 1 March 2006), the Supreme Court concluded that since a patent does not necessarily confer market power, defendants in cases involving a tying arrangement must prove the existence of market power to bring an antitrust claim.

A possible implication of this case is that companies might be able to require customers to use the spare parts and supplies (car parts, toner cartridges etc.), designed and sold for use with their proprietary equipment, and prohibit the manufacture and sale of spare parts and supplies by third parties. (more…)