|
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Aug 03, 2007 10:45 AM |
Authorising IP infringementOwner of premises, A, lets them (or part
of them) out to B who commits intellectual property infringements therefrom, did
A authorise the infringement.
If you were a municipal corporation in
1928 and you let a hall out to some who played a performance in infringement of
copyright (Adelaide Corporation
v APRA 40 CLR 481) -
NO.
If you were a venue owner in 2004 and you let your venue out to a concert promoter who arranged a copyright infringing performance (APRA v Metro on George [2004] FCA 1123) - YES. If you were the operator of a 'trash and treaure' market in 2006 and a market stall holder was flogging trade mark infringing products (Louis Vuitton Malletier v Toea [2006] FCA 1443) - NO. Pick the odd one out? Maybe it's Metro on George? Then again, Metro seems to sit in a similar universe to some of the defendants in Universal v Cooper here and Universal v Sharman here. Well, may be it is the trade mark one, as unlike both the Copyright Act (see s 13 and s 36) and the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act does not proscribe authorising infringement. But what about what the Full Federal Court held in Ramset v Advanced Building Systems [1999] FCA 898 at [52] - [55]. Well, just maybe the facts didn't quite go as far as Ramset. Anyone feel an appeal coming on? And anyway, why is it infringement to authorise infringement of copyright or patent, but not trade mark. For goodness sake, even the owners of registered designs get that right! More law reform anyone? Posted: Thursday - November 16, 2006 at 06:23 PM | |