ARTICLE · 01 FEBRUARY 2010

Appointment to ICANN’s Joint International Domain Name Working Committee

Addisons

Explore more from Addisons

Addisons' intellectual property partner, Karen Hayne, has been appointed as a member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) new Joint Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) working group.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Addisons' intellectual property partner, Karen Hayne, has been appointed as a member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) new Joint Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) working group.

This working group, which will be known as JIG, comprises representatives from ICANN's existing Country Code Names Support Council (ccNSO) and Generic Names Support Council (GNSO). The purpose of the JIG will be to deal with issues relating to the introduction of the new IDN Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDS) under the current Fast Track implementation process and the IDN Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) under the new gTLD implementation process, which are of common interest to both the GNSO and ccNSO.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Practical Tips For Patenting Alloy Compositions

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Filing Before The Data Is Complete | Lessons From A UK Patent Decision For Australian Innovators

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

Essentially Derived Varieties: Is Australia’s Plant Breeder’s Rights Framework Still Fit For Purpose?

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

Comparative Guide

Patent Litigation

Comparative Guide

Intellectual Property

Comparative Guide

Trademark Disputes

Comparative Guide

Franchise & Licensing

See more popular content from

Intellectual Property

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Pointon Partners

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Three Stripes, Four Stripes: The Adidas v White Fox Trade Mark Dispute

Adidas has commenced trade mark infringement proceedings in Australia against fashion retailer White Fox over its use of four parallel stripes on clothing. It is the latest dispute to test how far adidas can prevent third parties from using stripe designs which come close to its well-known three-stripe branding.

GlobalIntellectual Property

Assigning registered intellectual property rights in Australia: legal requirements and the importance of clarity

Understanding the legal requirements & best practices for IP assignment can prevent costly disputes & ensure a smooth transfer of ownership.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Copyright infringement unauthorised Wii games downloads

A warning was issued to copyright pirates earlier this month when a claim made by the video game company Nintendo Co Ltd (Nintendo) against an Australian individual for illegally copying and uploading to the Internet its new Super Mario Bros Wii game was settled.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

Patents In Australia: Novelty

Australian patent law requires all patents to be novel—meaning the invention must be new when compared with prior art existing before the priority date. A single prior disclosure that lacks novelty can invalidate a patent claim, jeopardizing licensing agreements, freedom-to-operate assessments, and infringement actions.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Good Different, Or Not Different Enough? Aldi Infringes Hampden’s Copyright In Snack Packaging

The Full Federal Court of Australia has handed down its appeal decision in Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103 which provides guidance regarding the application of copyright infringement principles to the packaging of look-alike products.

AustraliaIntellectual Property

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.

AustraliaIntellectual Property