The High Court has now provided some clarity by unequivocally stating that “surrounding circumstances” may only be used to construe a written contract when “ambiguity” is present
s 123 provides parallel-importer with defence to trade mark infringement despite repackaging
The Bell Group Limited (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 1056
The Chocolate Malt Balls War resumed with Mars (maker of Maltesers) seeking to prevent Delfi (a competitor) from registering the word MALTITOS as a trade mark
In Gardencity Altona v Grech Lansdowne AJ refused an application to remove a covenant requiring the main walls of any dwelling or shop on the land to be of brick and/or stone
Ed Heerey QC regularly presents trade mark seminars at the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ) Annual Conference
Final decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) made on the basis of its opinion as to what is fair in all the circumstances are rarely reviewable by the courts
ANCHORAGE seems like a good name for a funds management business. Sounds safe & secure. It also reminds me of Michelle Shocked and Northern Exposure, but that’s just showing my age
The Victorian Court of Appeal has held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is now statutorily modified by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010
Once again, we’ve seen the importance of choosing an appropriately experienced town planner when applying to the Supreme Court for the modification of a restrictive covenant