X hits on this document

125 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 31

(7)Issue of dual protection - Copyright/design overlap

Recommended reading:

RR 2005 at 577-592

Relevant provisions: ss 74-77 Copyright Act (1968) (“CA”)

The overlap problem – what is it?

Definition of corresponding design – s74 CA

Copyright protection where corresponding design registered – s75 CA

Artistic works applied as unregistered industrial designs – s77 CA

(i)

copyright subsists in an artistic work

(ii)

corresponding design has been applied industrially

* Reg 17 of Copyright Regulations 1969

* Safe Sport Australia Pty Ltd v Puma Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 IPR 120 (RR 2005 at 556)

*Press-Form Pty Ltd v Henderson’s Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 113 (RR 2005 at 556)

(iii)

products are sold, let for hire

(iv)

corresponding design has not been registered under Designs Act

‘Works of artistic craftsmanship’ not included, but no statutory definition

Sheldon v Metrokane (2004) 61 IPR 1

Certain reproductions of artistic works do not infringe copyright – s77A CA

Some recent case law on copyright/design overlap:

Shacklady v Atkins (1994) 30 IPR 387

Muscat v Le (2003) 60 IPR 276

*Digga Australia v Norm Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 33 (12 March 2008).

4.  CIRCUIT LAYOUTS ACT 1989

This topic will only be addressed if time permits.  Topic 4 will not be assessed in the exam at the end of semester.

Reading:

RR 2005 ch 10

Circuit Layouts Act (Cth) 1989

Avel v Wells (1992) 36 FCR 340

Nintendo Co v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134

Document info
Document views125
Page views125
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 06:47:04 UTC 2017
Pages31
Paragraphs1133
Words8078

Comments