*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
NB: <\/strong>Please note that from now on, all updates will include links for Westlaw AU only<\/b> (with the exception of the Journals available on Checkpoint, which will have an extra PDF). For further information, please click here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Australian\u00c2\u00a0Intellectual Property\u00c2\u00a0Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a024 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n Fairness and balance: Lessons from Canada for the proposed Australian law of fair use <\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/i>Melissa de Zwart<\/p>\n The Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy has recommended that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a broad, flexible exception for fair use\u00e2\u20ac\u009d should be introduced into the Copyright Act 1968 <\/i>(Cth). This proposal must be analysed in the context of the significant consideration recently given to the need for reform of fair dealing law in Australia and overseas. This article examines the potential scope for an Australian law of fair use in the light of previous reform attempts and the apparent transformation of Canadian fair dealing law as a consequence of major legislative reform and judicial reconfiguration of copyright as reflecting a balance of owners\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and users\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 rights.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Authorisation as accessorial liability: The overlooked role of knowledge <\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/i>Joachim Dietrich<\/p>\n The concept of authorisation of an infringement of intellectual property rights has not been uniformly interpreted or applied in Australia and the United Kingdom. This article argues that authorisation is a form of accessorial liability. As such, it creates liability for wrongdoing that requires proof both of acts of involvement in the principal wrongdoer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s infringement, and that such involvement is engaged in with a requisite mental element. The law of authorisation has been troubled precisely because the concept does not expressly refer either to the types of involvement that it encompasses, nor the mental state that is required. Without adequate consideration of these two factors, and particularly an express focus on the level of knowledge and the content of such knowledge that is in many contexts critical, the law will continue to be opaque and make the application of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153authorisation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d difficult to predict.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Trade marks for the design and layout of retail premises<\/i><\/b><\/a> <\/b>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/i>Ben McEniery<\/p>\n In January 2013, Apple Inc obtained United States trademarks for the design and layout of its retail stores. While innovative brand protection strategies of this kind are not without precedent in the United States, traders in Australia have seemingly not adopted them. This article considers the prospects of an applicant seeking to register a similar trade mark in Australia and the protection such a registration would likely provide.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0WAU – AIPJ Vol 24 Pt 3 Mar 14<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n