Most Recent
The owners of Mother energy drinks and Vittoria Food & Beverage have both lost their challenges to each other's 'Motherland' and 'Mothersky' trade marks and are considering taking the long-running stoush to the High Court.
Lawyerly's Litigation Law Firms of 2022 racked up precedent-setting victories in a year that continued to see major developments in class action law.
The High Court will hear an appeal over whether real estate agent Biggin & Scott should be held liable for copyright infringement for its supposed "indifference" to the copying of real estate marketing platform Campaigntrack's source code by a developer.
Biggen & Scott should not be held liable for copyright infringement for its supposed "indifference" to the copying of real estate marketing platform Campaigntrack's source code by a developer, the real estate agency group argues in a special leave application to the High Court.
Real estate marketing platform Campaigntrack has won an appeal of a ruling in an important copyright case over its cloud-based software that accused real estate agency group Biggin & Scott of authorising reproduction of the software’s source code.
The Full Federal Court has rejected an Australian inventor’s appeal of a ruling that found three manufacturers of essential oil products did not infringe his patent because the oil was a “staple commercial product”.
The maker of Mother brand energy drinks has won a stay of a judge’s decision to remove one of its trade marks for non-use, but has been hit with indemnity costs in its ongoing intellectual property stoush with rival Cantarella Bros.
Energy Beverages, which makes Mother brand energy drinks, has failed to convince a judge that two of its 'Mother' trade marks should not be removed for non-use.
Property developer PPK Group is challenging the dismissal of its long-running negligence case against law firm HWL Ebsworth over the $25.5 million sale of Crown-owned Sydney land.
A judge has denied an application by industrial filter manufacturer Laminar Air Flow to add a new respondent in a long-running trade mark dispute against rival Vokes Ltd, with a judge finding the company had provided no explanation as to why the bid was made just four months before trial.