I wrote this piece a long time ago, before the world changed. I wondered about swapping it for something corona-ish, especially as there are some fascinating things going on in the patent world in that area right now. For example, there is talk of both patent rights being “undermined” by State march-in rights under existing legislation, and patent rights being increased under proposed...
RARE SIGHTING OF A PVR INFRINGEMENT CASE – AND MUCH, MUCH MORE
Perhaps I am just over-excited, but I’m going out on a limb here and declaring Zespri Group Ltd v Gao [2020] NZHC 109 the must-read IP decision of 2020. Yes, already. Even if it’s appealed, it is unlikely that the appeal decision will have the same immediacy or impact. By New Zealand case law standards (at least outside of the criminal law), this one is essentially a John LeCarré...
section 17(1)(a) initial threshold test creeps higher
Section 17(1)(a), which prohibits registration of a trade mark if its use is likely to deceive or cause confusion, is a funny provision in terms of onus. An opponent relying on an earlier mark must meet an initial threshold test of showing that the earlier mark has a sufficient reputation, and if it can do so then the onus of proof flips to the trade mark applicant. Traditionally, that initial...
The secret laws of trade marks part II: specialist goods and services
This post is the second in a two-part series highlighting areas of trade mark law that wouldn’t be easy to find out for the non-expert (Part I, which is about proprietorship, is here). In Man Truck & Bus AG v Shaanxi Heavy-Duty Automobile Co Ltd [2017] NZHC 2821 Woodhouse J held that the applicant in s 17(1)(a) oppositions involving specialist goods and services will fail automatically...