It is something that is often overlooked however it is considered best practice to add a copyright statement and the little c symbol (Copyright Statement) on any literary or artistic works (Works) that a business publishes and asserts that it owns. Under Australian law, the “material form” of all original Works is automatically protected by copyright, however applying a Copyright Statement acts to put people on notice that the Works are protected by copyright and to provide a contact for anyone seeking permission to use it.[1]
Intellectual Property
Biologi’s Bf & Bk serums contain no Vitamin C – Court Orders prove it!
The recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 where final declarations and orders were made against Mr Ross Macdougald (Macdougald), Plant Extracts Pty Ltd ACN 613 551 349 (Plant Extracts) and skincare brand Biologi Pty Ltd ACN 618 697 297 (Biologi) sheds light sheds light on the contents of certain of Biologi’s skincare products.
Despite the finality and legal clarity of the orders (Court Orders) there appears to be some confusion about what they mean. The Court Orders which are final, declared and ordered that various representations (discussed below) made by Macdougald, Plant Extracts and Biologi in relation to their products on their websites, on social media and on various third party websites were false and misleading and amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct. [Read more…]
Plant Extracts Pty Ltd & Ross Macdougald admit misleading conduct – ordered to publish corrective notices
On 23 October 2023, in the matter of Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 Justice Downes issued an initial judgement and made orders for declaratory relief and the publication of eight (8) corrective notices by Plant Extracts Pty Ltd ACN 613 551 349 (Plant Extracts) and skincare brand Bilogi Pty Ltd ACN 618 697 297 (Biologi). Dundas Lawyers proudly acted for Native Extracts and the other applicants in these proceedings. The Court also issued permanent injunctions against Mr Ross Macdougald and made various declarations that representations made by both Plant Extracts and Biologi in relation to their botanical plant extracts and skincare products published on their own websites and replicated on various third party websites amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct and were in fact, false and misleading. [Read more…]
Skincare brand Biologi breached the Australian Consumer Law – ordered to publish 5 corrective notices
In a recent decision of the Federal Court in Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 Downes J issued an initial judgement and made orders for declaratory relief and the publication of eight (8) corrective notices by Plant Extracts Pty Ltd ACN 613 551 349 (Plant Extracts) and skincare brand Bilogi Pty Ltd ACN 618 697 297 (Biologi). The Court declared that various representations made by both Plant Extracts and Biologi in relation to their products on their websites, on social media and on various third party websites were misleading and deceptive and were false and misleading. [Read more…]
IP Australia guidelines for trademark classification
There has been a surge in trademark applications in the digital space, notably concerning virtual goods, virtual environments such as the metaverse, NFTs, and the blockchain according to observations made by IP Australia. This article discusses the things to consider when selecting the classification(s) for virtual goods and services when filing an application for registration of a trademark. [Read more…]
“User principle” damages for breach of copyright
The usual position in intellectual property infringement matters is that the successful applicant can elect between an account of profits or damages. However, what if the applicant has not suffered any direct loss as a result of the actions of the respondent that is held to have infringed its copyright? [Read more…]
Australian Court: AI can’t be an “inventor” an Australian patent
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Courts appellate court) has overruled an earlier decision relating to artificial intelligence (AI) and ‘inventor’s’ of patentable works. In accordance with the decision in Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62 (Thaler), an AI can no longer be considered as an ‘inventor’ for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). For a summary of the earlier decision which was the subject of this appeal, including a brief outline of the facts of the case, see our article here. [Read more…]
Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?
There is only seven days left to make your priority application for your .au domain name. From 21 September 2022 anyone can apply to have your .au domain and you don’t want that! Any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name). Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au Licensing Rules (Licensing Rules). [Read more…]
Trade mark infringement – the good faith defence
To build a brand, its vital for businesses to be aware of their rights with respect to using the intellectual property of others to avoid inadvertently infringing on someone else’s rights. Where a person honestly and accidentally infringes another’s trade mark (Infringer) a defence that may be available is that the the mark in question was being used in good faith. The circumstances in which this defence is available is set out in section 122 of the Act and is the subject of this article. [Read more…]
IP licences and state-based transfer duty
Transfers of intellectual property (IP) are not usually considered to be dutiable transactions pursuant to state-based Duties Acts. That said the question is always whether the IP includes goodwill, which is dutiable and as a result whether the payment of transfer duty is required.