It is not uncommon for Australian and New Zealand wine producers to use their name or surname as a trade mark for their wine.

Congratulations to the winners of the Henry Hughes IP awards at the Victoria University of Wellington School of Design’s 2015 end of year exhibition.

We are proud to again be supporting the awards. As a firm which specialises in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, we know how important it is that up-and-coming designers are celebrated and encouraged to create.

This article outlines three major differences between requirements for revocation of a registered trade mark for non-use in Australia and New Zealand:

In October 2009, Frucor Soft Drinks Limited and PepsiCo Inc (hereafter together “PepsiCo”) released a new 300ml bottle onto the New Zealand market known as the “Carolina” bottle. The Carolina bottle is used in New Zealand for the Pepsi, Pepsi Max and 7Up range of soft drinks.

In a decision on a trade mark opposition, the New Zealand Court of Appeal (Sexwax Incorporated v Zoggs International Limited [2014] NZCA 311) has held that the opposed trade mark ZOGGS is confusingly and deceptively similar to the MR ZOGS SEX WAX logo.

The line between a successful parody and a fraudulent imitation may be a fine one. If attempting to poke fun at another trader’s trade mark or name, be careful that you do not fall on the wrong side of that line.

A number of trade mark issues have arisen during negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). In this article we pick up on three of these issues, and explain what protections are available in New Zealand for non-traditional trade marks (such as trade marks for shapes, sounds and smells), well known marks and geographical indications.

In a landmark decision handed down 7 October 2015, the High Court of Australia has reversed the decisions of the lower courts and found that isolated genetic material is not patentable subject matter.

In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 the High Court of Australia unanimously held that claims 1 to 3 of Australian Patent No. 686004 did not relate to patentable subject matter and so were invalid