New Process for Timestamping IP works in Greece

On 26 February 2019, the Hellenic Copyright Organization (Greek acronym: “OPI”) launched a new online service for “electronic timestamping” of all types of works.

The service, which can be accessed at , claims to offer the opportunity to creators, both amateurs and professionals, to easily get certified proof of existence of their work at a specific time, in order to be prepared to prove the priority of their rights of intellectual property or related rights if a case of infringement or another related dispute arises in the future.

The authority of OPI to establish the new online platform was provided by article 54 par. 11 of Law 4481/2017, amending article 69 par. 1 of Greek Copyright Law 2121/1993 regarding the services that OPI may provide. Continue Reading

Plant Breeder’s Rights in Australia: updated, amended and strengthened

Recent amendments to the PBR Act have strengthened PBR rights and have aligned aspects of PBR with other intellectual property laws in Australia.

This article summarises the changes.

The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Act 2018 (Cth) (Amending Act) received Royal Assent on 24 August 2018 and makes significant changes to the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth) (PBR Act).

The most recent changes to the PBR Act came into effect on 24 February 2019. Key changes include amendments permitting additional damages for infringement and new provisions dealing with unjustified threats of infringement, exclusive licences and joint ownership. Continue Reading

“…For me? As what? Tough guy? I don’t need tough guys. I need more lawyers…”: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

There is a popular vintage Harley Davidson t-shirt that says “Tough Guys Finish First.”  That may be true.  But, sometimes, to finish first, one does not need more tough guys; one needs more lawyers, as a crime-related matter involving the Mongols Motor Cycle Club has recently shown.  So today we thought that we would use Michael Corleone’s observation as the title of our discussion of how creative intellectual property lawyering has impacted that recent Mongols’ matter in a California federal court.  [Not only is the Corleone quote apt here, but it is often useful in any context to start with a quote from The Godfather, which has been described as the “sum of all wisdoms” and “the source of all knowledge.”  So it is probably fitting that we lead this piece (or any piece) with a Godfather quote or reference, especially since it has worked for us before.]

The notion that trademark law is relevant to criminal law is not a new one, and the concept that controlling the marks or identifying symbols associated with an alleged criminal enterprise are also not new.  Indeed, it has been celebrated in cinema and conceded in real life. See, US v. Saunders, 826 F. 3d 363, 375 (7th Cir.  2016 ) (“But the court ultimately accepted that … he used red tape to wrap his heroin in order to distinguish it, and that he was known on the street for having excellent quality heroin because of this ratio”) (emphasis added).  But law enforcement efforts to seize control of, and limit the use of, group identifying marks raise sensitive free speech and related issues that are worth considering.  And in the end, no matter how many tough guys were within the Mongols’ ranks, it was about having the right lawyers involved.  Indeed, those lawyers made their mark by making the right arguments to let the Mongols, who were on the verge of losing the rights to their name, keep their mark. Continue Reading

Case update: trade mark licensing and register formalities in the spotlight

The Federal Court recently handed down its decision in Calico Global Pty Ltd v Calico LLC1. This decision highlights the potentially fatal consequences of not updating the IP Australia register to reflect a change in trade mark ownership.

The decision also serves as a reminder of the fundamental importance of ensuring that the owner of a trade mark (such as the registered owner or an unregistered assignee) exercise sufficient control over the use of the trade mark by a licensee. Continue Reading

1-800 Contacts Unlawfully Restricted Competitors’ Trademark Use in Search Engine Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently decided that agreements reached by 1-800 Contacts, Inc. with a number of its competitors to settle claims that the competitors’ online search advertising infringed on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks unlawfully restricted the competitors’ ability to engage in search engine marketing, to the detriment of both consumers and search engines.

The FTC’s Complaint

In August 2016, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against 1-800 Contacts, an online contact lens retailer, alleging that various settlement agreements it had reached with other online contact lens retailers unreasonably restrained both price competition in keyword search advertising auctions and the availability of truthful, non-misleading advertising in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Continue Reading

TOP-10 IP Disputes in 2018

in PDF format

CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Sony vs. PAG
DETAILS: Resolution of the Constitutional Court No. 8-P dated 13 February 2018
SUMMARY: Unlike the counterfeit, the original (grey) product cannot be destroyed under the court judgment (unless it endangers human health, the environment or cultural heritage) and it is impossible to recover a large compensation
Continue Reading

Troubled Waters for Online Pirates in Greece

On November 6, 2018 a remarkable blow was delivered to online piracy in Greece. On that day, the newly-formed “Committee for Online Copyright Infringement” – informally and more descriptively also known as the Greek “Anti-Piracy Committee” – published its first decisions, ordering, by one of those (Decision No. 3/2018), all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Greece to block the access to 38 domains names that corresponded to websites with copyright infringing content. The decision was most welcomed by copyright holders in Greece and was also widely shared among Internet users, many of whom were taken by surprise by the new development as the Committee’s establishment had not, until then, become known to most people not associated with the intellectual property field. Continue Reading

Client Wants To Do Business in US, What To Do from an IP Perspective

The Amazon Marketplace, an online sales platform for third-party sellers, has seen a significant increase in popularity. It is not, however, the only third-party sales platform,, e-Bay, and Etsy are other popular marketplaces in the U.S., and all offer great ways for international sellers to enter the U.S. market. There are, however, some IP considerations international sellers should consider before selling on these marketplaces. Continue Reading


June 17, 2019 is the big day – a day anticipated since 2014. The major changes to the Canadian Trademarks Act will be implemented on this day. What does this mean for trademark owners?

These changes will affect the types of trademarks which are protectable, the basis for registration, the procedures for filing trademarks, the opposition procedures and the manner of enforcement. In addition, as of June 17, 2019, Canada will accede to the Madrid Protocol and the Nice Agreement.  This Part I will deal with some of these changes. Continue Reading

Copyright law update – proposed amendments to website blocking laws


The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2018 (Act) which passed both Houses of Parliament on 28 November 2018, and is due to commence the day after it receives Royal Assent, amends section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Section 115A of the Copyright Act was introduced in 2015 and enables a copyright owner to apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an injunction requiring a carriage service provider (CSP) to take reasonable steps to block access to an online location located outside Australia that infringes, or facilitates an infringement, of copyright and has the primary purpose of infringing copyright or facilitating the infringement of copyright (whether or not in Australia) (Online Infringement Provisions). Continue Reading