Jane Glover Barrister – Mediator – Adjudicator
Category

Litigation

L

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...

LISTEN UP: a lawyer’s most important soft skill

L

As a junior lawyer I sat in on many speakerphone calls between law firm partners and their clients. During one such call I was shocked when the partner rubbed his temples and muttered, audibly enough for the client to hear, “Just get to the f***ing point”. At the time I hadn’t given much thought about what it meant to listen well, but I knew that wasn’t it. The more I have...

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...

CAREER COUPLES

C

On this day in 1993 – probably about the time when I was starting to get my head around moving away from my tiny, sleepy little home town to go to law school – Dame Silvia Cartwright was being sworn in as New Zealand’s first ever female High Court judge. First ever. It is hard to believe that so shocking a milestone was achieved so recently. I’ve written previously about...

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...

MERRY CHRISTMAS: DIRTY DOLLARS TO BE REFUNDED UNDER NEW FTA PROVISIONS

M

Few things make my blood boil like those maggoty-sacks-of-offal who prey on the vulnerable. Volunteering at the Māngere Community Law Centre many years ago (via the Russell McVeagh programme) introduced me to all manner of sharks in our midst. I’m thinking of the pay-day lenders with their punitive interest rates and nasty default clauses. And the car dealers who sell lemons at high...

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...

DIY IP DISPUTE RESOLUTION: use of independent expert lawyers

D

Good news for parties looking to set up a quick and hopefully-not-too-dirty private IP dispute resolution procedure – they seem to work. The High Court has scrutinised one such arrangement carefully, in the context of an application to set aside a statutory demand for damages and costs flowing from the decision of an independent expert IP lawyer, and it all stacked up (Beacham Parts &...

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.