The company that makes Wicked Sister desserts has suffered a defeat in its trade mark battle against the maker of Wicked dipping sauces, with a judge removing some of its trade marks from the register.
A judge has found that Hytera Communications cannot “repackage” evidence given by one of its deputy directors to avoid rules about opinion evidence while defending a copyright infringement case by Motorola Solutions.
Generic drug maker Sandoz has successfully appealed a $26.3 million judgment finding it infringed a patent owned by rival H Lundbeck relating to the top-selling antidepressant Lexapro.
Counselling app Lyf is suing smartphone maker Mintt for allegedly infringing on a trade mark it owns for the universal OK hand gesture, saying Mintt’s logo is substantially identical to Lyf’s registered mark.
Tile maker Ceramiche Caesar has prevailed in its challenge to a judge’s ruling allowing building products manufacturer Caesarstone to register two trade marks despite a finding that they were deceptively similar to one of its marks.
Veterinary pharmaceutical company Norbrook Laboratories has filed court proceedings after a delegate of IP Australia tossed its opposition to a patent by Bayer New Zealand for a bovine antiseptic treatment.
IP Australia has appealed a judge’s decision to allow four Aristocrat gaming patents to proceed to grant, hoping for another victory after winning two high stakes challenges to software patents before the Full Federal Court.
Coffee capsule maker Caffitaly is challenging a ruling that revoked three patents at the centre of an intellectual property war with rival One Collective.
Hytera Communications has lost its latest attempt to adjourn an upcoming virtual trial in a copyright case brought by rival Motorola, despite concerns by the Chinese radio manufacturer that witnesses could be exposed to the coronavirus if forced to travel to give evidence.
The co-founders of fintech company Slyp have been given a second chance to patent their digital receipts technology after IP Australia found that they “misunderstood” the advice of their previous patent lawyer.