Australia and New Zealand Intellectual Property Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs, Litigation Acacia Law: Intellectual Property experts in Australia and New Zealand © 2003-2011 Acacia Law Acacia Law specialises in Intellectual Property Litigation and Oppositions and Revocation applications. Here are summaries of some of our recent litigation experiences: N V Sumatra v New Zealand Milk Brands Ltd – This case was heard by the Court of Appeal in early 2011, and began its life at the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) as a trade mark opposition. The Opponent (NZMB, a company closely affiliated with the milk giant, Fonterra) objected to Sumatra’s trade mark ANGKOR, alleging that it was confusingly similar to Fonterra’s ANCHOR trade mark. Sumatra was successful before the IPONZ. NZMB appealed to the High Court and was successful in that court. Sumatra appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal. Three judges in the Court of Appeal asked many questions during the appeal hearing. As yet, the decision on this case is still outstanding. Assa Abloy v FMI – This case was heard in the High Court in New Zealand in early 2011. The Court had to consider the validity of a patent. The decision relied on a complex factual matrix, relying on several witnesses to historic factual data. Based on the information at hand, the Court found the patent to be invalid. Assa Abloy v FMI (interlocutory application) – The High Court of New Zealand considered whether or not to admit further evidence in this patent dispute (which was an appeal from the Intellectual Property Office Hearings Office). The Court’s main consideration was to provide a decision on all facts available. Despite the high threshold for admitting further evidence on appeal, the High Court considered that the interests of Justice were best served by admitting further evidence. Further evidence was allowed in reply to the additional evidence. But Fashion Solutions Comercio E Industria De Artigos Em Pele, LDA v Sao Paulo Alpargatas SA [2010] NZIPOTM 24 (12 November 2010) – At this Opposition hearing, the proprietor of the trade mark HAVAIANAS argued that its trade mark was too similar to the application for CUBANAS. The Opposition was unsuccessful, but has since been appealed to the High Court. The High Court Appeal hearing will take place in May 2011 Shri Nallis Sambbasivam v Nalli Kuppiswami Chetty and Nalli Kuppuswami Ramanathan trading in partnership as NALLI [2010] NZIPOTM 17 (6 September 2010) – In this application to the IPO to remove a trade mark from the register based on non-use, the Assistant Commissioner decided that the Applicant for Removal did not need to prove that it was aggrieved by the mark in question remaining on the register, where the Proprietor of the mark had conceded in its evidence that the two parties were trade rivals. On the evidence at hand the Assistant Commissioner did not consider that sufficient evidence of genuine commercial use had been put forward. The registered trade mark was removed from the Trade Mark’s Register. This decision has subsequently been appealed to the High Court. Copyright - injunctions : In this interesting series of three injunction applications, Acacia Law’s client had the unfortunate experience of having a former distributor allegedly copy our client’s design for an impliment used in farming and similar industries. We obtained 3 different injunctions against the former distributor (3 applications were required, because the alleged infringer engaged in different activities which came to light as the case progressed). The parties then settled the dispute with a confidential settlement, which is why the parties are not named here. Our client succeeded on the basis of copyright infringement, passing off and breach of  consumer laws. As a result of this case our client took extra care to register designs and patents for its new technology that it was creating at the time. Had a patent or design been in place for the technology involved in this dispute, the case might have been settled without the need to resort to the courts.