Hazan Hollander

Your Ideas, Safeguarded. Your Future, Protected. At Hazan Hollander, we are leaders in intellectual property law across Australia. Whether it’s trade marks, patents, copyrights, or trade secrets, our team delivers tailored, strategic solutions to protect your business and creative assets. Why choose us? ✔️ Proven Success in IP and Commercial Litigation – Achieving exceptional outcomes in protecting and enforcing our clients’ rights ✔️ Comprehensive IP Strategies for startups and established enterprises ✔️ Proven Track Record with years of successful client outcomes ✔️ Client-Centric Approach to meet your unique needs ✔️ Nationwide Support for businesses across Australia Let’s protect your innovation and drive your business forward. 📞 Call us today: 02 9233 4266 📧 Email: [email protected] 🌐 Website: www.hazan.com.au Hazan Hollander – Protecting what matters most.

📢 Case Update: Key Ruling on Vehicle Monitoring Patents in SARB v. VMS Appeal In a notable decision for the IP landscape, the Full Federal Court has partially overturned a previous ruling in SARB Management Group Pty Ltd v Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 53, impacting the realm of patent rights for vehicle monitoring systems. VMS, holding two patents for detecting and managing parking overstays, initially succeeded in claiming that SARB's three versions of vehicle overstay detection systems infringed its patents and dismissed the challenge to the validity of the patents. SARB challenged this on appeal. While the trial judge found SARB's systems infringed, the Full Court on appeal ruled differently, finding that SARB's third and latest system did not infringe VMS's patents. The critical takeaway: the Full Court clarified that VMS’s patent claims did not extend to systems where vehicle overstay detection is carried out via data collection apparatus—a feature unique to SARB's third version. Consequently, the court has relieved SARB from infringement liability on this version and awarded SARB its appeal costs against VMS and its litigation funder. This ruling highlights the importance of detailed patent construction and precise claim interpretations. It also highlights that early advice can identify approaches that may avoid litigation. For companies and individuals requiring strategic advice about IP protection and enforcement, our specialised IP team is here to help. Contact us for guidance on patent rights, enforcement, or defence strategies. Litigation is not the only way.

📢 Trade Mark Applicants: Don’t Be Discouraged by an Adverse Examination Report! 📢 Receiving an Adverse examination report from IP Australia can feel like a setback, but it's important to know it doesn’t have to be the end of the road for your trade mark application. With the right strategy and guidance, there are often ways to overcome objections and move towards acceptance. Our lawyers regularly assist clients in navigating these reports, providing tailored advice to address IP Australia’s concerns and helping applicants overcome obstacles to secure their trade mark. 📩 If you've received an Adverse examination report, email it to me for a review and personalised advice on your options moving forward. Let’s work together to protect your brand!

Navigating Complex Disputes? Rely on Strategic Litigation Experience 🔎 Key Insights from Husseini v. Girchow Enterprises The Federal Court decision in Husseini v. Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 143 (12 November 2024) sheds light on the importance of transparency in business dealings. In this case, franchisees claimed they were misled about the setup costs and profitability of their investments, resulting in financial losses. The Court’s findings highlight the risks of inaccurate representations and the need for skilled legal guidance in disputes and when entering contracts. With care and advice when entering contracts, it’s possible to avoid costly litigation. Hazan Hollander brings a wealth of experience and strategic insight to contracts and commercial litigation. If you’re in a dispute or unsatisfied with the management of your case, our team is here to help. 💼 Need a second opinion? Reach out to us today for trusted strategic advice.

📢 Trade Mark Applicants: Don’t Be Discouraged by an Adverse Examination Report! 📢 Receiving an Adverse examination report from IP Australia can feel like a setback, but it's important to know it doesn’t have to be the end of the road for your trade mark application. With the right strategy and guidance, there are often ways to overcome objections and move towards acceptance. Our lawyers regularly assist clients in navigating these reports, providing tailored advice to address IP Australia’s concerns and helping applicants overcome obstacles to secure their trade mark. 📩 If you've received an Adverse examination report, email it to me for a review and personalised advice on your options moving forward. Let’s work together to protect your brand!

📢 Case Update: Key Ruling on Vehicle Monitoring Patents in SARB v. VMS Appeal In a notable decision for the IP landscape, the Full Federal Court has partially overturned a previous ruling in SARB Management Group Pty Ltd v Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 53, impacting the realm of patent rights for vehicle monitoring systems. VMS, holding two patents for detecting and managing parking overstays, initially succeeded in claiming that SARB's three versions of vehicle overstay detection systems infringed its patents and dismissed the challenge to the validity of the patents. SARB challenged this on appeal. While the trial judge found SARB's systems infringed, the Full Court on appeal ruled differently, finding that SARB's third and latest system did not infringe VMS's patents. The critical takeaway: the Full Court clarified that VMS’s patent claims did not extend to systems where vehicle overstay detection is carried out via data collection apparatus—a feature unique to SARB's third version. Consequently, the court has relieved SARB from infringement liability on this version and awarded SARB its appeal costs against VMS and its litigation funder. This ruling highlights the importance of detailed patent construction and precise claim interpretations. It also highlights that early advice can identify approaches that may avoid litigation. For companies and individuals requiring strategic advice about IP protection and enforcement, our specialised IP team is here to help. Contact us for guidance on patent rights, enforcement, or defence strategies. Litigation is not the only way.

No Serious Harm, No Defamation In a recent decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal in a defamation case regarding alleged defamatory publications. The Applicant claimed defamation over an online article detailing her criminal convictions, which were later overturned on appeal. The respondents were the website owner and its Managing Director. Under Section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), it must be proven that a publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation. Here, the primary judge found that the Applicant did not establish a likelihood of serious harm due to the publication. Despite claims of employment difficulties, factors influencing this decision included: - The Applicant’s admission of deceptive acts, despite her overturned convictions. - No evidence that the publication impacted the Applicant’s reputation, as the article had minimal readership. For law professionals and individuals seeking an understanding of defamation law and how reputational harm is assessed, connect with us. Learn how these rulings could apply to similar defamation concerns.

BREAKING NEWS: Hazan Hollander resists application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia Hazan Hollander successfully represented its client in proceedings before the NSW Court of Appeal in a case concerning the construction of a contractual term. The Court of Appeal (Bell CJ, Leeming and Kirk JA) agreed with the contractual construction for which Hazan Hollander contended.   Following the decision, the unsuccessful party applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Pleasingly, the High Court agreed with submissions made on behalf of Hazan Hollander’s client and refused special leave to appeal with costs.  

Hazan Hollander is pleased to have recently assisted a client obtain judgment against their local council in respect of damage caused to their property.   Disputes may arise between local councils and residents or businesses. If you would like to discuss any issues you may have with your local council, please get in touch. #localcouncil #disputes #disputeresolution #commerciallitigation

Can “MELBOURNE BONE AND JOINT CLINIC” be registered as a trade mark for various services including orthopaedic surgery and related medical services? The Trade Marks Office rejected such an application on the basis that “MELBOURNE BONE AND JOINT CLINIC” was not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the services from the services of other persons. The Federal Court of Australia recently dismissed an appeal by the trade mark applicant. The Court concluded that the ordinary signification of “MELBOURNE BONE AND JOINT CLINIC” is an establishment in Melbourne for the provision of medical services relating to bones and joints which directly describes the services the applicant provides. #trademarks #medicalservices #surgery #sme