Tag: Currently browsing "Western Australia"
Tim Golder - Allens Arthur Robinson
Tim Golder is a highly experienced adviser on copyright, designs, confidential information and trade marks, as well as trade practices issues dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct. Tim Golder is adept at drafting licensing, distribution and franchising agreements. Tim Golder also undertakes substantial work in registering and protecting trade marks and domain names. Major projects have included work on the continued use of technology, trade marks and other intellectual property following the sell-down of a leading chemical manufacturer.
Tim Golder’s vast experience includes advising Australia Post, Australian Grand Prix Corporation, Brown Brothers, Cadbury Schweppes, Cricket Australia, Christian Dior, Décor, Dun & Bradstreet, Ford Motor Company, Golf Australia, The Herald & Weekly Times, Kraft Foods Limited, Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation, Nike, Philip Morris, Sara Lee, Simplot (Leggo’s etc), TAG Heuer, Tommy Hilfiger, VAAM Management (Mark Webber) and Victoria Racing Club.
Tim Golder is admitted to legal practice in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia and has worked in the intellectual property and information technology field at leading London law firm, Slaughter & May.
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 19 Apr 2008 / 06:31 AM
- Category:
- IP Firms Directory
- Tags:
- Arthur Robinson Tim Golder, Australia, Australian Grand Prix Corporation, Cadbury Schweppes, chemical manufacturer, Christian Dior, Ford Motor Company, information technology, information technology field, Kraft Foods Limited, law, London, Mark Webber, Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation, New South Wales, Nike, Philip Morris, Queensland, Sara Lee, Slaughter & May, Tim Golder, Tommy Hilfiger, Victoria, Victoria Racing Club, Western Australia
Entitlement, Inventorship and Employment - University of Western Australia v Gray (No 20) [2008] FCA 498
French J’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray (No 20) [2008] FCA 498 (and all 573 pages and 1619 paragraphs of it) have been handed down, in which the claim and all cross-claims were dismissed except for Sirtex’s cross-claim against Dr Gray.
The decision relates to a claim by University of Western Australia that Dr Gray, a cancer research specialist, (and Dr Chen) had developed cancer-treating technologies on university time as an employee of the university. Dr Gray became associated with, and transferred intellectual property rights to, Sirtex Medical Limited and the Cancer Research Institute Incorporated. It was claimed that Dr Gray obtained intellectual property rights in breach of his contractual and fiduciary duties to the University of Western Australia.
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 18 Apr 2008 / 05:28 AM
- Category:
- Patents
Cutler Hughes Harris - South Australian and Western Australia State Governments review franchising
According to Cutler Hughes Harris, the catalyst for the Western Australia review appears to be a decision by Yum Restaurants not to renew franchise agreements for 50 KFC franchised stores in Western Australia. The franchisee (who is associated with Jack Cowin) has apparently said that Yum offered to buy the 50 KFC outlets at a price that the franchisee thought did not recognise 38 years of goodwill.
The terms of reference include a review of the adequacy of existing State and Federal legislation; to identify whether there are trends in relation to unconscionable conduct and whether franchisees had adequate remedies. The inquiry is being asked to consider including a ‘good faith’ obligation into the Code which may have serious consequences if it were to apply to renewals or extensions of franchise agreements.
South Australian and Western Australia State Governments review franchising
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 16 Dec 2007 / 11:38 PM
- Category:
- Franchising
Justice French - Making your own fun in intellectual property law
Making your own fun in intellectual property law - Justice Robert French provides an entertaining light-hearted look at intellectual property law and its lawyers. Justice French also reveals a few things he learnt as a judge and a practitioner acting for Wray and Associates.
“Last year I presided on a Full Court appeal about the Viagra patent. I was looking forward to an exploration of the ecstasy and mystery of human love. Instead we found ourselves with Pfizer and Eli Lilly on a quest for a “workable erection”. We were accompanied by a host of imaginary but unimaginative PhD graduates. They were keen to show us that, having read about strips of penile tissue relaxing in an organ bath of sildenafil, they knew how to make Viagra without even thinking about it. Not surprisingly, their arguments didn’t get up.”
“Take the Millenium Bug … I am not speaking here of the fin de siecle numerical glitch that was going to spell the end of civilisation as we knew it. No, I am talking about a lolly and its shape which I described in the relevant judgment as ‘… a confectionary of fruit flavoured gelatinous composition. It comprises a central body which resembles a section of a sphere with a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface. There are two oval eyes on the body and three short stylised ‘legs’ on either side of the body symmetrically disposed about the eyes’ It shape as a trade mark was the issue. Was this humble geometrical section “inherently distinctive? And the really big question - was its shape part of the ‘common heritage of mankind”? What a question. In the Full Court of the Federal Court we chewed on it metaphorically speaking.”
Justice French also urged collaboration to “ensure that in Western Australia both the practitioners and the Court can offer a service of national and international excellence”.
December 2006 edition of Intellectual Property Forum
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 09 Jan 2007 / 02:05 AM
- Category:
- Copyright, Designs, Distractions, Domain names, Patents, Trade Marks, Trade Practices