In August the New Zealand High Court overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision not to revoke the trade mark FEEL ALIVE, emphasising the importance of evidence of genuine use of the trade mark and that the owner controlled and authorised the use of the trade mark. The High Court’s further decision on costs serves as a reminder that a successful appellant may not be awarded costs when the defendant does not participate in the appeal and advises that it will abide the Court’s decision.

As of October 1, 2024, substantial changes will be implemented regarding the costs awarded in patent, trade mark, and design rights proceedings. These adjustments reflect a significant increase in the amounts that can be claimed as costs following a hearing. With increasing stakes for both winning and losing parties, the dynamics of IP disputes are set to shift, influencing how parties approach their cases.

The New Zealand High Court has overturned a decision of the Commissioner of Patents not to allow an applicant to correct an omission, made by the applicant’s patent attorney, in not requesting postponement of acceptance of a New Zealand patent application. 

IPAustralia has just completed its four-yearly fee review, with changes to come into effect from 1 October 2024. While the majority of the changes are fairly straightforward and customary, a change to the way excess claim fees for patent applications are charged presents a new consideration for patent applicants and their advisors in Australia.

In the patent sphere, while the law on inventorship by non-human inventors is now largely settled, the UK High Court recently caused a stir by finding an invention which was heavily reliant on an artificial neural network (ANN), patentable. This note covers the appeal of that decision and its implications.

The High Court decision in Manuka Doctor Ltd v Hill considers the issue of trade mark similarity, and the pivotal consideration of distinctive versus descriptive elements in deciding whether there is a sufficient risk of deception or confusion in order to deny registration.

Under the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 (“the Act”), it is possible to register in New Zealand a Geographical Indication (GI) for wine and spirits.  Following an amendment to that legislation, the nationals of some countries now have protection for GIs for a broader range of goods. 

 With the enactment of the Trade Marks Act 2002, the Māori Trade Marks Advisory Committee was established to address Māori concerns relating to the registration of trade marks that contain a Māori sign. This article discusses the new practice guidelines that can be used to ensure appropriate use on your end.