In Watson as Trustee for the Watson Family Trust v Cosmetic Warriors Ltd,¹ it was held that the Appellant Mr Watson had demonstrated sufficient use of the disputed LUSH trade mark on the basis that he had conducted business and exercised personal control over the trade mark. This was in the context of a non-use removal application filed by Cosmetic Warriors Ltd alleging that Mr Watson had not sufficiently used the LUSH trade mark during the relevant period of Trade Mark use specified in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Trade Marks Act’)² in section 92(4)(b).³ The Federal Court considered whether the appellant discharged their duties arising from section 100(1)(c) if the Trade Marks Act.
In GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd  FCA 520,¹ Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia held that a mobile radio product created by Uniden Australia ty Ltd was substantially similar in overall impression (and hence infringed) a registered design relating to a mobile radio product owned by GME Pty Ltd.
In Karlsson v Griffith University¹ , the Federal Court of Australia held that section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)² provides a defence to infringement of a registered trade mark in circumstances where the user of an unregistered trade mark (that is deceptively similar or substantially identical to a registered trade mark) is entitled to the section 124 defence if the unregistered trade mark was continually used prior to the registration date of the registered trade mark.
A decision has been overturned by the Full Federal Court of Australia in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) being regarded as an ‘inventor.’¹ The case raises policy questions concerning the extent to which AI may claim title as ‘inventor’ as equally as a natural person. It was found, however, that the title under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (‘Patents Act’) is only applicable to the latter.²
In Vector Corrosion Technologies Ltd v E-Chem Technologies  FCA 188,¹ the Federal Court of Australia considered the issue of entitlement and, in particular, whether Vector Corrosion Technologies Ltd (Vector) was entitled to the grant of a patent in view of section 15(1)(c) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).²
This Australian Patent Office (‘APO’) decision relates to the granting of a request filed by Neurim Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Neurim) for an extension of time to file a complete patent application to take advantage of the grace period provisions set out in section 24(1)(b) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act),¹ which was unsuccessfully opposed by Generic Partners Pty Ltd (Generic).