Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 OCTOBER 2023

Australian Designs: Reading Between The (Broken) Lines

Davies Collison Cave
Explore more from Davies Collison Cave

In Wynnes Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys Pty Ltd v Wamlez Pty Ltd [2023] ADO 3, the Australian Designs Office considered a third-party request to be heard in respect of the validity of certified design...

AustraliaIntellectual Property
William Sidebottom
William Sidebottom
Ben Dziekan
Ben Dziekan
Justin Negler
Justin Negler
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

In Wynnes Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys Pty Ltd v Wamlez Pty Ltd [2023] ADO 3, the Australian Designs Office considered a third-party request to be heard in respect of the validity of certified design number 201712220 (the Design).

Before concluding that no grounds for revocation were made out, and that a certificate of examination should issue, the Hearing Officer was required to consider the scope of the Design in view of apparent discrepancies between (i) the drafting styles used in the representations, (ii) the statement of newness and distinctiveness (SoND), and (iii) the product name.

Background

The Design was filed by Wamlez Pty Ltd (Wamlez) on 18 April 2017. The title of the Design is "driver bit for fastener", and the SoND filed with the application reads as follows:

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

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

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

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

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
Pointon Partners
Article

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
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

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
LegalVision
LegalVision