Partnering with clients to provide on-demand contract lawyers, giving in-house legal teams the confidence to be agile.
We advise some of Australia’s largest companies on their strategies for launching new brands and protecting their existing brands. Our clients come from a range of industries, including food, wine, household products, luxury goods, apparel, pharmaceuticals, insurance, financial services, aviation, print and broadcast media and telecommunications. We review new brands and work with our clients’ marketing and management teams on advertising strategies, clearing product performance claims, reviewing competitors' conduct and defending challenges.
Our high-level technical knowledge of Australian consumer laws is complemented by many years of experience working with complex businesses and brands. Clients rely on us to advise them on the legal risks associated with marketing offers, promotions and strategic re-branding, and we balance this with clients’ objectives of achieving differentiation and motivation.
If disputes arise, our specialist IP litigators can readily step in to protect our clients’ brands, by seeking urgent interlocutory relief, initiating or defending proceedings. MinterEllison’s extensive capabilities in large-scale litigation mean our clients benefit from efficiency and speed when disputes arise.
The High Court of Australia held that Google was not liable for representations made by advertisers in sponsored links on Google's search results pages. The case concludes a five year court battle between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Google Inc. (Google) over misleading representations displayed in sponsored links on Google's search results pages.
At a hearing in April this year, several tobacco companies challenged the Constitutional validity of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) (Act) in the High Court of Australia.
On 27 June 2012, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong passed the most extensive set of amendments to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance since the legislation was introduced in 1996.
Earlier this month, GlaxoSmithKline entered an agreement to settle healthcare fraud claims brought against it in the U.S. for US$3 billion dollars. The settlement was approved by a U.S. District Court on 5 July 2012 and is reported to be the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history. One aspect of the complex case involved off-label advertising. Recent developments, in both the U.S. and Australia, demonstrate a move to requiring greater transparency in dealings between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers.
A recent decision in the Full Federal Court has shown that while manufacturers are generally free to make goods according to a design that is not registered, care must be taken to ensure that those products are branded in a way that distinguishes them from the market leader.