<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LawFont.com &#187; Trade Mark</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/category/ip/trade-mark/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:57:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>IP Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill &#8211; the whole kit and caboodle all in one exciting bill</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At an IP Academics’ conference in early February, I remember Professor Di Nicol asking, rhetorically, ‘where has all the patent reform gone?’. Di pointed out that we’d had any number of ACIP Reports, ALRC Reports (like that on Gene Patenting), and IP Australia Discussion Papers, all with no actual legislation resulting. No more, it seems. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Australia &#8211; raising the bar?</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IP Australia has released the IP Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill for public consultation. It&#8217;s huge: it covers patentability standards, a patent research exception; enforcement; oppositions &#8211; you name it, it&#8217;s in there. Written submissions due by 14 April 2011. More thoughts to come&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade Mark Enforcement Review: weird criminal offences redux</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IP Australia is reviewing the penalties (criminal offences) and additional damages in trade mark law. Actually, they&#8217;ve been reviewing this for a while: we had the ACIP Review, and then an Options Paper (pdf) published by IP Australia back in November; submissions on the Options Paper close this week. Anyway, I was just reading through [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade marks and Big Tobacco</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/03/trade-marks-and-big-tobacco/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/03/trade-marks-and-big-tobacco/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:48:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wonderful post from Professor Mark Davison on the Australian Trade Marks Blog. &#8216;Nuff said.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/03/trade-marks-and-big-tobacco/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>All the RIAA wants for Christmas is a big fat ACTA</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Knowledge Ecology International has published a list of proposals which they say are &#8220;the substantive suggestions for provisions of the ACTA that the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America] sent to the USTR [US Trade Representative] on March 17, 2008&#8243;. The wish list makes for very interesting/scary reading for those interested in what the next [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/07/01/all-the-riaa-wants-for-christmas-is-a-big-fat-acta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Book plug (no, not mine) &#8211; David Lindsay&#8217;s book on domain names</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/05/09/book-plug-no-not-mine-david-lindsays-book-on-domain-names/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/05/09/book-plug-no-not-mine-david-lindsays-book-on-domain-names/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 07:01:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/05/09/book-plug-no-not-mine-david-lindsays-book-on-domain-names/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today we had the pleasure of a staff seminar up here at the University of Queensland Law School &#8211; by David Lindsay, an old colleague of mine from my melbourne days. David these days is at Monash University Law School. David&#8217;s recently published a book with Hart called International Domain Name Law. Now, I remember [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/05/09/book-plug-no-not-mine-david-lindsays-book-on-domain-names/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cadbury purple &#8211; the reprise</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/04/14/cadbury-purple-the-reprise/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/04/14/cadbury-purple-the-reprise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/04/14/cadbury-purple-the-reprise/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was going to write about the latest decision of the Federal Court on Cadbury&#8217;s long, drawn-out battle to prevent Darrell Lea use the colour purple to market its goodies, including chocolate (I&#8217;ve written about earlier decisions; see here, here, here). But then I found this masterful post by TM expert, Mark Davison. Nuff said.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/04/14/cadbury-purple-the-reprise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Counterfeiting in Australia</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/14/ip-counterfeiting-in-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/14/ip-counterfeiting-in-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/14/ip-counterfeiting-in-australia/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today I read a paper in the latest IP Forum Magazine on &#8216;Trade Mark Counterfeiting &#8211; the Australian Problem&#8217;, by Corrs partner Stephen Stern. I read it in part because just recently, Australia decided to join the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (which I&#8217;ve discussed here and here). Stern&#8217;s article is an interesting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/14/ip-counterfeiting-in-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Proposal</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/11/15/anti-counterfeiting-treaty-proposal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/11/15/anti-counterfeiting-treaty-proposal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/11/15/anti-counterfeiting-treaty-proposal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are interested in IP you may have noticed, around the traps, references to proposals for a &#8220;plurilateral anti-counterfeiting treaty&#8221;. The proposal comes out of a small group of countries &#8211; Canada, the 27-member state European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland. According to an IP Watch story a couple of weeks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/11/15/anti-counterfeiting-treaty-proposal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Australia be a third party in the US-China IP WTO Dispute Proceedings &#8211; updated</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/10/11/should-australia-be-a-third-party-in-the-us-china-ip-wto-dispute-proceedings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/10/11/should-australia-be-a-third-party-in-the-us-china-ip-wto-dispute-proceedings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/10/11/should-australia-be-a-third-party-in-the-us-china-ip-wto-dispute-proceedings/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the weekend, news that Trade Minister Warren Truss announced that Australia would join, as a third party, the dispute resolution brought in the WTO by the United States against China relating to enforcement of intellectual property rights. [Update: apparently the Labor party (or at least Simon Crean) approves this decision, labelling it a 'tentative' [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/10/11/should-australia-be-a-third-party-in-the-us-china-ip-wto-dispute-proceedings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

