In Ceramiche Caesar S.p.A v Caesarstone Ltd (2020),¹ the Full Federal Court considered the effect of an amendment and in particular, the effect an amendment excluding goods from a Trade Mark application has on an Applicant’s claim to “honest concurrent use.”² The Court also considered the connection between control required to be exercised by a registered Trade Mark Owner and their ability to rely on “authorised use.”³
The Federal Court of Australia considered the permissibility of amendments to a patent specification in view of amendments to s 102(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (‘the Act’) under the ‘Raising the Bar’ amendments. This is a first decision relating to this section of the Act (as amended) and it was noted by the Judge that the amendments to s 102(1) were intended to align Australian law with other jurisdictions such as the UK and Europe.
A decision of the High Court of Australia has considered whether a doctrine relating to the exhaustion of a patentee’s rights of sale and use upon the first sale of the product is applicable in Australian Patent Law, and whether it should replace the doctrine of implied licence. The High Court ultimately adopted the United States and European jurisprudence in relation to the exhaustion doctrine in Patent law, with connection made to section 2A of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (‘the Act’).¹
In Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd  FCA 82¹, the Full Court found that the trade mark URBAN ALE lacked distinctiveness and was deceptively similar to the trade mark URBAN BREWING COMPANY, and on that basis was cancelled under section 88(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).²