Jane Glover Barrister – Mediator – Adjudicator
Category

Intellectual Property

I

WHY YOU ARE FABULOUS, IMPORTANT, AND LUCKY

W

In lieu of a real-life Christmas present, I thought I would share with you my go-to happy thoughts about the practice of IP. If you’ve had a long year of billable hour pressures, admin, and office politics, maybe some of these thoughts will resonate enough to reignite a spark. YOU GET TO LEARN NEW THINGS Each new file is a whole new world to dive into and discover. Even the most humdrum...

SEEING VEINS

S

To my horror, I seem to have spent quite a lot of time recently reading about and thinking about the philosophy of IP law. A year ago, I would have rolled my eyes and edged away from anyone who said something at once so pompous and so dull. At heart, I am a realist, a pragmatist. I’m primarily interested in knowing things that will help my clients win. Until recently, I took a ruthlessly...

PRE-ACTION AUDIT: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

P

Letters before action have an unfortunate tendency to be overblown, overstated, and over-egged. The demands made can be entertainingly over the top. A while ago I was instructed in relation to a matter where my client had received some particular doozies that had been dashed off without any real analysis. The alleged causes of action were many and various, but oddly the one that really stood out...

SECTION 25(1)(B) APPLECART STANDS FIRM

S

I was taken aback to read a submission advanced by Pharmazen in Pharmazen Ltd v Anagenix IP Ltd [2020] NZCA 3016, namely that actual market use and conditions should be relevant to the assessment of confusion and deception under s 25(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 as well as to the assessment of confusion and deception under s 17(1)(a) . Such a bold submission! And what would the consequences...

TIME TRAVEL WITH SECTION 14 OF THE PATENTS ACT 2013

T

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of the Parliamentary Counsel Office when the drafting of s 14 of the Patents Act 2013 was discussed. As you may recall, s 14 provides that an invention is a patentable invention if, amongst other things, it is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies 1623. Yep, 1623. From the time of King James I. And this is...

HUMAN GENOME EDITING: NOT JUST FOR THE MAGPIES

H

I can’t deny it – I am a terrible magpie. I want to learn about everything that is new and shiny and sparklingly original. It was because of this tendency that I spent quite a large chunk of last year learning about human genome editing. And what I discovered is that – as many of you will no doubt know already – this technology really is more than just a sparkling new toy...

ARE WE DOING IT ALL WRONG? INTERNET EVIDENCE IN TRADE MARK CASES

A

I wrote this piece a long time ago, before the world changed. I wondered about swapping it for something corona-ish, especially as there are some fascinating things going on in the patent world in that area right now. For example, there is talk of both patent rights being “undermined” by State march-in rights under existing legislation, and patent rights being increased under proposed...

RARE SIGHTING OF A PVR INFRINGEMENT CASE – AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

R

Perhaps I am just over-excited, but I’m going out on a limb here and declaring Zespri Group Ltd v Gao [2020] NZHC 109 the must-read IP decision of 2020. Yes, already. Even if it’s appealed, it is unlikely that the appeal decision will have the same immediacy or impact. By New Zealand case law standards (at least outside of the criminal law), this one is essentially a John LeCarré...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

T

I know, I know – we are all intellectual property specialists; we have the words ‘intellectual property’ sprinkled liberally throughout our websites; we read intellectual property articles and cases; we go to intellectual property conferences…. And yet. “Intellectual property” is just a catch-all, a voluminous handbag filled with largely unrelated items, some...

section 17(1)(a) initial threshold test creeps higher

s

Section 17(1)(a), which prohibits registration of a trade mark if its use is likely to deceive or cause confusion, is a funny provision in terms of onus. An opponent relying on an earlier mark must meet an initial threshold test of showing that the earlier mark has a sufficient reputation, and if it can do so then the onus of proof flips to the trade mark applicant. Traditionally, that initial...

Jane Glover Barrister – Mediator – Adjudicator

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.