Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd (Acn 065 199 439) (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 2009-0610 FCA D,2009-0610 FCA E |
| Date | 2009 |
| Court | Federal Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
- Terry White Chemists Australia Fair v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing
- Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd
-
Dreamstreet Lending Pty Ltd v Weiss (No 2)
...Prebon (Australia) Pty Ltd v Purcell (2008) 175 IR 414; [2008] NSWSC 852 Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 177 FCR 61 Sir Kim Lewison and David Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia (Lawbook Co, 2012) Division: General Division Registry: Victor......
-
Teo Seng Hoe (alias Tew Seng Hoe) v IDV Concepts Pte Ltd and others
...On the first point, Mr Ang drew my attention to the Australian decision of State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 737, where Emmett J observed (at [19]) that copyright was denied in advertising slogans, which had thus consistently been refused protection in ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
Legal Update: Want To Protect Brand Names And Slogans? Don't Call On Copyright
...register trade marks rather than seeking to rely upon copyright. In State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 737, Pacific Technologies claimed to the owner of copyright in the phrase: "Help-Help-Driver-in-Danger-Call-Police-Ph.000" The proceeding before......
-
When Copyright Will Not Come To Your Assistance!
...recently decided case of State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 737 June 2009) is another example of the court refusing to allow copyright to be used to create monopolies in short phrases, tag lines, slogans and titles. In the case, the Federal Court ......