*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n This issue of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal<\/em>\u00c2\u00a0(Volume 32 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: David Lindsay<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n OBITUARY<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Saving Your Games: A Case for the Copyright Protection of Gameplay <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Joseph Lau Chin Yang<\/p>\n Video games are popular and profitable, tempting competitors to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153free ride\u00e2\u20ac\u009d on the success of popular titles by duplicating them wholesale or in part and marketing the result as their own game. Especially worrying is the practice of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cloning\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, where competitors copy gameplay, which is not one of the categories of material protected under the Copyright Act 1968 <\/em>(Cth). Developers face an uphill battle trying to remedy this deficiency by establishing that copyright, in the form of one of the existing categories of material protected under the Copyright Act, subsists in gameplay or other constituent elements of games related to it and that cloning infringes said copyright. To resolve this difficulty, the Copyright Act <\/em>should be amended to protect gameplay directly, as a new type of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153original work\u00e2\u20ac\u009d under that Act.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Does s 122A of the Trade Marks Act Achieve the Australian Government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Policy Goal of<\/em><\/a> Allowing for the Parallel Importation of Genuine Goods? <\/em><\/a><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Omid Komeili<\/p>\n The Australian Government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s policy goal is to allow for the parallel importation of genuine goods. Section 122A of the Trade Marks Act 1995 <\/em>(Cth) purported to rectify the unsatisfactory operation of the now-repealed s 123(1) defence, which was intended to operate as a defence to trade mark infringement when the goods being imported were genuine. The s 123 defence remains in force in relation to services. This article begins by exploring the arguments on both sides of the parallel importation debate, the history of s 123(1) and the likely effectiveness of s 122A. It argues the new defence reduces the risk of parallel importers infringing the relevant trade mark. It then demonstrates how trade mark owners and licensees could nonetheless implement and enforce contractual devices that restrict parallel import activity. This in turn leads to a call for further law reform. This article proposes explicitly prohibiting restrictions on parallel import activity and introducing proactive safety laws to address some concerns trade mark owners and licensees have regarding the safety of parallel imports. Finally, this article suggests measures to limit the detrimental effect parallel imports may have on brand reputation.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Joint Authorship and the Contribution of Ideas: English Lessons in Kogan <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Claire Roberts<\/p>\n Whether someone who contributes ideas \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but not ink \u00e2\u20ac\u201c to a creative work deserves recognition as a joint author is a difficult question. The challenge is made even greater by new and emerging technologies that enhance collaborative possibilities. This article argues that a recent English decision \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Kogan v Martin <\/em>(Kogan) \u00e2\u20ac\u201c contains valuable reflection on the general concept of joint authorship and the specific question of what amounts to sufficient contribution. In that decision England and Wales moved towards a more \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fluid\u00e2\u20ac\u009d approach to what joint authorship is \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a course Australian courts might consider. This article then argues that both the post-Kogan English approach, and the arguably more \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rigid\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Australian approach, are both preferable to the intentionality approach adopted in the United States.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – AIPJ Vol 32 No 2 Contents<\/a> or here:\u00c2\u00a0 New Westlaw Australia -\u00c2\u00a0AIPJ Vol 32 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n