feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

February 17, 2008

The Digital Communications Age

On Thursdsay 6 March in Brisbane, Cliff Rosenberg, Digital media entrepreneur and former Managing Director of Yahoo! Australia and NZ will be speaking about the digital communications age at an AICC lunch.

Cliff Rosenberg has a strategic consultancy background in South Africa. With leading management roles in iTouch and Vodafone
early this decade, Cliff went on to become Managing Director of Yahoo!
In Australia/NZ from 2003-2006. After leaving Yahoo!, Cliff was MD and
Partner in digital strategy agency, Clear Light Digital – which was
bought out by ASX listed Bluefreeway Group. Still Chairing Clear Light
Digital, Cliff is an active Venture Capitalist in the ‘new media’
space. Cliff is also founder of the Australian Interactive Advertising
Bureau and was Chairman of the Mobile Advertising Awards in 2006 and
2007.

Book online

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 17th February 2008 by David Jacobson in Web/Tech

February 8, 2008

Does copyright in a label prevent importation?

In The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 49, the Australian copyright owner of the Palph Laren "polo player" symbol failed in its action under s 37 of the Copyright Act in the Federal Court to prevent clothing bearing its embroidered logo being imported from USA into Australia.

The symbol was lawfully embroidered overseas into the external surface of an article of clothing, but the  person entitled to the copyright here did not consent to its importation.

The defendants succesfully contended that the polo player logo embroidered on each article amounted to a non-infringing accessory within the meaning of the exception to infringement in section 44C of the Copyright Act, because it is a ‘label’ embroidered onto an article of clothing.

UPDATE: December 2008: Appeal dismissed

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 8th February 2008 by David Jacobson in Legal