Puma has failed in its bid for leave to appeal a decision that found its ‘Procat’ trade mark was deceptively similar to US machinery manufacturer Caterpillar’s CAT marks.
The founder of beleaguered investment group Mayfair 101, James Mawhinney, has argued that multiple law firms failed to advise him of the privilege against self-exposure to penalty in proceedings brought by the corporate regulator, which saw him banned from soliciting funds or promoting any financial product for 20 years.
A judge has slammed a $26 million penalty agreed to by Uber and the ACCC as “not within the range”, saying the impact of the rideshare giant’s misleading conduct appeared to be “trivial”.
ASIC has won an appeal of a judge’s decision that found Gold Coast-based payday lenders Cigno and BHF did not need a licence to issue loans to hundreds of thousands of consumers.
Defunct financial advisory firm Dover Financial and its former director have taken ASIC to court seeking discovery as they mull a potential lawsuit against the corporate regulator.
A judge has signed off on a settlement in a trade mark spat between M&M candy maker Mars and the world’s largest macadamia grower, Macquis Macadamias, under which Marquis will no longer seek to register its MM mark for chocolate bars.
The liquidator of collapsed vocational education provider Careers Australia can serve its lawsuit on two of the company’s former directors now living overseas, after a judge found a prima facie case of insolvent trading and breaches of directors duties had been made out.
IVF company Virtus Health has withdrawn its offer to acquire rival Adora Fertility from Healius, citing the competition regulator’s opposition to the takeover.
Tech company Vehicle Management Systems has come up short in its third attempt to block competitor SARB Management Group’s patent application for a magnetic parking overstay detector, with the Full Court rejecting claims that VMS’ managing director should have been listed as the device’s inventor.
La Trobe Financial Asset Management will pay just $750,000 for misleading investors in its 48 hour and 90 day notice accounts over a period of more than three years, with a judge saying the company would have faced a penalty “well in excess” of this amount if not for reassuring correspondence from ASIC during its investigation.