Welcome to our Newsletter, bringing you the latest in Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Law news.
‘.CON’ – How to take down domain names used for infringing purposes
Anyone is able to register a domain name with little more involved than paying a yearly registration fee. This provides the opportunity for persons to easily register domain names that can be used for the purpose of infringing a brand owner’s intellectual property rights.
So what can be done in relation to infringing domain names? In this article we discuss the available legal and practical options to deal with infringing domain names and websites.
Click here to read more.
Is it designer? No, it’s infringement – NFTs back in the spotlight
Although popular culture’s fascination with NFTs has arguably diminished since their prime in recent years, the legal issues surrounding NFTs (including those explored in our article here) certainly haven’t.
One of these legal issues, trade mark infringement, was recently explored in the high-profile US case of Hermes International v Rothschild.
Although this case relates to US trade mark registrations (and law), it nonetheless highlights a few important concepts which also exist in the Australian trade mark system.
Click here to read more.
Important considerations prior to commencing court proceedings in intellectual property disputes
Where an owner of intellectual property (Owner) is of the view that its rights have been infringed by another person, besides deliberations as to prospects of success in Court, there are at least four considerations Owners should be aware of in the lead up to the potential commencement of Court Proceedings by the Owner.
In this article we explore these four considerations in detail.
Click here to read more.
In case you missed it, the following articles were recently written and published by our team:
Risk management program now mandatory for certain critical infrastructure assets
The next tranche of Australia’s new critical infrastructure regime is here. As foreshadowed in our previous article, the much anticipated Security of Critical Infrastructure (Critical infrastructure risk management program) Rules (LIN 23/006) 2023 (CIRMP Rules) came into force on 17 February 2023. Entities responsible for certain critical infrastructure assets prescribed by the CIRMP Rules have until 17 August 2023 to adopt a critical infrastructure risk management program.
Anyone operating in the fields identified should carefully assess whether their assets meet the definitions of criticality under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth).
Click here to read more.
Catching up with international developments in privacy: The Commonwealth’s Privacy Act Review 2022
The Privacy Act Review – Report 2022 would lift the bar on protections for personal information under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The proposed reforms would close the gap about halfway between Australia’s privacy laws and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, as well as moving us closer to recent privacy reforms in other key jurisdictions – Japan, Singapore, California.
The proposed reforms would increase protections for personal information and give individuals more transparency and control in how their personal information is handled.
Click here to read more.
Space Law Update: One person’s space junk is another’s treasure – who is legally responsible for damage caused by space debris?
Debris in low-earth orbit has increased by 50% in the last five years and some estimate that there is up to a 10% chance of a person being hit by space junk this decade. There are millions of pieces of space junk orbiting Earth at such high speeds that even a fingernail-sized fleck of paint can cause substantial damage to satellites and other objects in orbit.
In HWL Ebsworth’s inaugural Space Law Article, we discuss who is legally responsible for damage caused by space debris.
Click here to read more.
Pokémon No: Federal Court issues injunction against misleading NFT project
Pokémon’s ‘Gotta Catch ‘Em All!’ quest seems to square neatly with the promise of NFTs as digital collectibles.
While there are a number of NFT projects which involve games with Pokémon-inspired concepts, one group took this a step further by promoting their own forthcoming ‘PokeWorld’ NFT game, featuring recognisable Pokémon like Pikachu, Bulbasaur, Charmander and Eevee.
This case marks one of the first major examples of an Australian Court being called upon to consider NFTs.
Click here to read more.
Federal Court dismisses complaint against Google’s use of consent summaries for ‘Skippers, Skimmers and Readers’
Last year the Federal Court handed down a $60 million penalty to Google LLC (Google) for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, for statements made about collection of user location data.
In December, the Federal Court issued its decision on the second such case, and found that, unlike in the first case, Google had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when seeking consent from account holders to combine their user data and data from third-party sites and apps for the purpose of improving targeted advertising.
The two Google decisions illustrate that short summaries presented to individuals can be appropriate vehicles for privacy consents, but also the importance of ensuring that those summaries are accurate.
Click here to read more.