Joanna Lawrence - Blake Dawson

Joanna Lawrence practises in the area of intellectual property with a particular interest in trade mark, domain name and copyright law. Prior to joining Blake Dawson in 1999, Joanna Lawrence worked in New Zealand for 3 years as a trade mark lawyer for a firm of patent and trade mark attorneys. Joanna Lawrence regularly advises local and international clients in all aspects of trade mark law, including searching, prosecution, opposition actions, non-use/removal actions and licensing of trade marks, brand enforcement and protection including trade mark infringement matters, domain name disputes, consumer protection and copyright matters.

Joanna Lawrence has acted for diverse range of clients, including clients from the food and alcohol, hospitality, entertainment, sport, fashion and luxury goods, financial services, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries.

Natalie Hazel - Blake Dawson

Natalie Hazel’s practice at Blake Dawson focuses on intellectual property law and food regulation. Natalie Hazel advises clients in relation to copyright, trade marks, licensing, distribution, marketing and advertising, consumer protection, passing off, sponsorship and confidential information.

In particular, Natalie Hazel advises a range of clients on legal issues associated with proposed marketing and advertising initiatives, and the licensing and control of intellectual property rights, including drafting licence and distribution agreements. Natalie Hazel recently completed a 6 month secondment to Insurance Australia Group where she was responsible for advising on a broad range of intellectual property issues. Natalie has also advised clients on issues arising under the new Food Standards Code and related legislation.

Annika Barrett - Blake Dawson

Annika Barrett specialises in trade mark and copyright law. Annika joined Blake Dawson in 2000, and since that time has advised in relation to the prosecution, opposition, removal, licensing and infringement of trade marks, copyright infringement actions, consumer protection matters, trade promotions and labelling matters. Annika Barrett acts for a large range of local and international clients, including clients in the telecommunications field, the food and beverage industry and the agricultural industry.

Lisa Ritson - Blake Dawson

Lisa Ritson is Blake Dawson’s national IP Practice Head. Rated as a leading individual in Intellectual Property: Trademark and Copyright Law by Chambers Global, 2007, “Lisa Ritson increasingly attracted the attention of the market for her ‘prompt responses and astute business sense”‘ Chambers Global, 2008 and in Intellectual Property Best Lawyers International 2008: Australia.

Lisa Ritson is an internationally recognised IP lawyer and does a broad range of contentious and non-contentious intellectual property and e-commerce work including in the areas of trade marks, copyright, merchandising, marketing and advertising, sponsorship and endorsement, franchising, intellectual property licensing, passing off, confidential information, and consumer protection. Lisa Ritson is a “superb IP lawyer with an excellent practice” in both the contentious and commercial spheres Chambers Global, 2008.

Mary Padbury - Blake Dawson

Mary Padbury has been a partner of Blake Dawson since 1989. In 1985-86 she worked on secondment with the London IP firm, Bristows. Mary Padbury served as the firm’s resident partner in London from 2000-2002. Mary Padbury was an Executive Partner from 2003 to 2005 with management responsibility for the firm’s Melbourne Office and intellectual property, patent, competition and corporate practices. Mary became the firm’s Chairman in July 2005.

Mary Padbury has undertaken intellectual property litigation and the negotiation and documentation of agreements for the development, licensing and transfer of technology for Australian and multinational corporations, governments, statutory corporations and universities and research institutes. Clients acted for include Wyeth, Rolex, BASF, ICI, FIFA and Monsanto.

Senior Associate Intellectual Property - Blake Dawson - Non Contentious

We are seeking an experience General IP Senior Associate who possesses a blend of exceptional technical skills, standout ability to develop strong client relationships and a driving ambition to progress with the firm. Our client is one of the few Australian law firms which provides a complete range of contentious and non-contentious fully integrated specialist intellectual property service. As part of the Melbourne Intellectual Property and Competition (IPC) team the successful candidate will be experienced in, and provide the best strategic advice to, local and international companies operating in the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, publishing, food, media, financial services, airline, life sciences, chemistry, electronics, computer engineering, mining and engineering sectors. With a number of the firms partners consistently ranked as being among the best in their respective fields of expertise, the IPC team offers opportunities no other firm can match. For a confidential discussion, please contact STUART ABLETHORPE in our MELBOURNE office on 9623 6777, quoting Ref No. 3B/43786

Blake Dawson - Battle over the colour purple goes against Cadbury - Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Limited (No 8) [2008] FCA 470

Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson of Blake Dawson report that Justice Heerey of the Federal Court of Australia has handed down his decision of Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Limited (No 8) [2008] FCA 470 in the long-running dispute between Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltdand Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd in relation to the use of the colour purple for chocolate and confectionery. According to Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson, Justice Heerey dismissed Cadbury’s claims against Darrell Lea.

Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson note that Cadbury has claimed that use of a particular shade of purple in connection with Darrell Lea’s chocolate confectionery business during the Christmas trading period in 2000 – 2004 amounted to actionable passing off at common law, misleading and deceptive conduct, and false representations in contravention of sections 52, 53(c) and 53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson also note that Justice Heerey, who decided the case at first instance, was required to treat the trial as continuing and to reconsider expert evidence adduced by Cadbury which discussed the importance of colours in modern day marketing practices. Although Cadbury had sought a new trial on appeal, Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson observed that the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that justice would be served by a further hearing before the primary judge at which Cadbury’s expert evidence would be considered.

According to Arthur Artinian and Lisa Ritson, the decision of Justice Heerey may mark the end of a five year legal battle between Cadbury and Darrell Lea, during which this matter has been heard by his Honour at first instance, by the Full Federal Court of Australia, and again by his Honour in the present decision. However, it has been widely reported in the Australian press that Cadbury intends to appeal the decision, so the battle is clearly not over yet. The decision of Justice Heerey confirms that it remains extremely difficult to enforce rights in relation to non-traditional brand elements such as colours where such elements are used, albeit to a lesser extent, by other traders in the relevant market.

Blake Dawson - Battle over the colour purple goes against Cadbury

Blake Dawson - Skins to skins: a cautionary tale for manufacturing contracts and copyright licensees

Rebecca Young and Belinda Findlay of Blake Dawson report on Futuretronics.com.au Pty Limited v Graphix Labels Pty Limited and John Atta [2007] FCA 1621, in which a Federal Court of Australia decision indicates that absent an express term to the contrary, a manufacturer of a non-patentable and non-unique product may be able to create and sell its own version of the product.

According to Rebecca Young and Belinda Findlay, this decision highlights the need for there to be clear contractual terms set out with respect to manufacturing relationships, including expectations regarding competition within the marketplace, keeping in mind trade practices considerations. Where an existing manufacturing relationship is in place, a court is unlikely to extend an implied copyright licence beyond the precise requirements of the manufacturing relationship.

Blake Dawson - Skins to skins: a cautionary tale for manufacturing contracts and copyright licensees

Blake Dawson - “Sportsboy” too close to “Sportsgirl”

Emma Rodigari and Lisa Ritson of Blake Dawson report on SPORTSBOY Trade Mark [2007] ATMO 71 (22 October 2007), in which a Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks has refused to register the SPORTSBOY trade mark in relation to clothing in Australia in light of opposition by the proprietor of the well-known SPORTSGIRL trade marks. The Delegate considered Sportsgirl’s reputation along with prior use of its registered and unregistered SPORTSGIRL trade marks and held that Sportsgirl had done “sufficient work” in putting the onus onto the Applicant to establish that its trade mark would not deceive or cause confusion.

Blake Dawson - “Sportsboy” too close to “Sportsgirl”

Blake Dawson - It was never in the bag: the Colorado Appeal

Melinda Upton, Helen Gill and Lisa Ritson of Blake Dawson report on the decision of Colorado Group Limited v Strandbags Group Limited [2007] FCAFC 184, in which the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia ordered the cancellation of the COLORADO trade mark registration in respect of backpacks. According to Melinda Upton, Helen Gill and Lisa Ritson, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia upheld the primary judge’s view that backpacks are not goods of the same kind as handbags, wallets and purses and ordered the cancellation of the COLORADO trade mark registration in respect of backpacks.

Melinda Upton, Helen Gill and Lisa Ritson note that trade mark owners should keep in mind that “goods of the same description” may be interpreted narrowly for the purposes of deciding ownership. Melinda Upton, Helen Gill and Lisa Ritson also note that trade mark owners should be aware that their trade mark registration may be open to attack on the basis that the mark did not, as at the date of registration, distinguish their goods and services from those of others if, prior to their registration, another trader has also used the mark for the same type of goods or services.

Blake Dawson - It was never in the bag: the Colorado Appeal