iPhone trade mark snapped up by Apple

After a squabble with Cisco Systems for the coveted 'iPhone' trade mark, it appears that Apple now owns the trade mark in the US. Of course, no such luck yet with the iPad trade mark.

No problems for Apple in Australia, with the iPhone (with the Apple 'apple') trade mark accepted by IP Australia on the 26 May 2008.



The iPad trade mark looks like it is going to be a little more contentious. A US company, IP Application Development LLC have applied for the trade mark IPAD for amongst other things tablet computers, electronic handheld devices (although there is some suspicion that this company is somehow related to Apple). Apple own the IPAD trade mark, but only for class 9 and in relation to 'electronic information display terminals including electronic information kiosks and public access display apparatuses'.

UWA v Gray: High Court refuses to grant leave to hear appeal

The High Court have refused to grant special leave to hear an appeal from the full bench of the Federal Court, ruling out the University of WA's hopes of getting their hands on a cancer treatment patent worth millions of dollars.

For those not familiar with the case, I have a brief summary in an older blog post.

iiNet 'copyright infringement' case dismissed: Judge says it's impossible to conclude authorisation of infringement

I have been following the iiNet case for quite a while now, so I was quite excited to hear that a decision had finally been made. In what many would call a landmark case, the film industry (represented by The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)) brought an action against iiNet for allegedly authorising their customers to infringe the copyright of various movie studios.

On the 4 February 2010, Judge Cowdroy of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed the case against iiNet, awarding costs to iiNet (estimated to be in the vicinity of $4 million).

Judge Crowdroy based his decision on the fact that iiNet has no practical control over it's customers copyright infringement. He differentiated between the Internet, and Bit Torrent (which while a legitimate way of downloading large files, is often used for the purpose of copyright infringement), noting that iiNet had no control over the use of Bit Torrent.

He concluded that iiNet was entitled to the 'safe harbour' provisions because it had a policy on infringement, even if AFACT did not agree with this policy.