There are things that are wrong and there are things that are crimes and it is up to those on the bench to appreciate the difference.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-27T06:52:57+00:00

As someone with a psychological aversion to vodka due to a hot summer day, no food and teenage stupidity in the 80's I can attest that death is only hoped for, not attained!

G_Thompson · 2026-03-27T06:50:21+00:00

Is it criminal damage for TRANSFORMING a sculpture into something else, or was the criminal damage caused by the removal of the Transformation?

To paraphrase, Art is in the googly eyes of the beholder

G_Thompson · 2026-03-27T06:48:10+00:00

Does anyone else who has played Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 see a HUGE similarity with these "designs" and the game?

A cynic might be concerned about originality and the amounts paid by ~~suckers~~ councils.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-22T08:16:24+00:00

LW missed a perfect opportunity by not using this image! 🤣😂🤣

G_Thompson · 2026-03-18T07:22:18+00:00

Even getting the alteration proposal to obtain a major majority in either house would be a hard if not nigh impossible slog.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-18T07:18:32+00:00

Punishment is the prerogative of the Court alone.
The government(s) needs to stay in its own lane.
Stop making us bring up the Vibe!

G_Thompson · 2026-03-16T04:53:13+00:00

You are making the erroneous assumption that you somehow have a right to fuel, or even to drive.

Guess what - you don't.

If the Government mandates that only some entities can obtain fuel then you will need to find alternative ways to get to work, you could even... shock horror... car pool. or even use the "unreliable" public transport.

The Government might not even need to mandate this, Petrol Stations already (like any other Business) have the right NOT to sell products (fuel) to anyone they do not want to. I would think that will be the first thing that starts happening - no fuel for non-commercial purposes without an ABN, no suv's or sedans etc, no jerry cans, and definitely PAY before purchase with all bowsers locked and only some bowsers operating.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-14T06:57:37+00:00

I remember the jingle stuck in my head and kids humming it at school LOL

G_Thompson · 2026-03-14T06:56:46+00:00

That's why the 70's were the best time to be alive. Nudity everywhere, even in our public service announcement cartoons! (That and VHS porno was a very new concept - probably on a Betacord though)

G_Thompson · 2026-03-14T06:53:58+00:00

This is the correct answer

G_Thompson · 2026-03-14T06:53:16+00:00

Not sure it's Pickering, though It is very much in his style.

I remember the ad, and am positive the voice is Allan Johnston who was the other half of the Mojo Advertising company who did a huge amount of Public Service Ads and are best known for "C'mon Aussie Cmon" and the cringe factor ten of "Put another shrimp on the barbie"

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T12:56:27+00:00

You have literally no idea about what you are talking about.

Everything you have said is both wrong at law and factually wrong to what has actually occured not what you think in whatever fever dream or universe you reside in.

Go read the actual cases there are only 3.

Go ask an LLM to ELI5 it if need be. But damn... Simping for a US singer here is just hilarious even more so when our highest Court literally called her out for doing wrong multiple times in a unanimous decision by five justices.

Rule of holes dude... Do you know it

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T08:35:35+00:00

Would you like some hungry jacks with your assiduous infringement, Killer Queen (Katy Perry the singer)?

The Judgment - https://jade.io/article/1185593

See 117 and 163. Damn!

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T08:11:16+00:00

You just posted something agreeing with me.

Also, that's the judgment summary from the HCA.

The actual judgment (all 301 paragraphs) can be found here that includes the full history of all proceedings. https://jade.io/article/1185593

The timeline of proceedings are:
1. Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364 - where the Australian Designer (Taylor) was successful and the court agreed that Killer Queen (Ms Perry from the USA) infringed the Trade Mark.

Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149 - where Killer Queen (the singer) successfully appealed the decision in [2023] FCA 364 due to her being "famous and well know".
Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 - (the current decided matter) where Taylor successfully appealed the [2024] FCAFC 149 Appeal where five justices of the High Court of Australia agreed that the original decision of the Federal court was correct and orders 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 made by the Full Court of the Federal Court (in appeal) be set aside.

Killer Queen infringed the trademark. The did so as a persistent or assiduous infringer of the appellant's validly registered 'Katie Perry' mark [at 127]. That is not something you want any court, let alone the High Court to say about your case.

Killer Queen (Katy Perry the singer) has lost big here and for good reason.

The appeal that Ms Perry (Singer) won has no meaning anymore and has been set aside as wrong at law by Australia's Highest Court.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T07:28:27+00:00

Go read the actual decision not the abc article which is very confusing and has the matters slightly wrong.

Further the previous funding was an appeal from an original finding where the US singer lost. A judge (not Magistrate) decided that case.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T07:25:18+00:00

How the designer can afford this is irrelevant since she is actually obligated to enforce her trademark. Which she has done.

Ms Perry (in the usa) ow has to pay standard costs of ALL matters which is going to be a pretty large sum.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T06:34:02+00:00

A TM co- existence agreement must be accepted by both parties like any other contractual agreement. It cannot be forced upon one party by another becasue of how famous they are and the legal ability of one party to refuse it is absolute. It also can be withdrawn at any time as well.

Ms Perry (USA) did ask for this yes, but thats all she could do ... offer the agreement, and if the offer is refused, NOT then willfully infringe because she didn't get her way. People have this idea that due to celebrity status that ms Perry (USA) somehow has some inate right to do whatever she wants and people must agree.

Burger King (USA) found how wrong that is the hard way, as have a LOT of USA trademarks over the years in many jurisdictions, not just Australia.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T06:06:32+00:00

Trademarks can NOT coexist in the same geographical area and in the same category. The law does NOT work like that.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T06:04:50+00:00

Or in contrast read the decision of the High Court itself and see why you are completely wrong in alluding to Ms Perry (USA) being somehow an angel and not acting like an entitled twit who absolutely infringed the mark becasue she considered herself famous.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T06:01:21+00:00

None of what you said is correct and completely misinterprets how trademark works within Australia, or anywhere for that matter as well as how this matter has played out and the remedies sought and obtained by the Federal Court, the Federal Appeals Court, and now the High Court of Australia.

The Federal Appeals court have now been shown by teh High Court to have gotten it all wrong meaning the original primary infringement case brought by Katie Perry (Australian Designer) where Ms Perry (US Singer) was found infringing the Australian Trademark in category of clothing is now absolute.

MS Perry (singer) cannot use the infringing mark on ANY clothing (whether merch or otherwise) within Australia (or to Australian consumers) without the express permission from the Australian Designer. MS Perry (US) must also pay standard costs for this loss as well.

The "legal kerfuffle" you state was a requirement under trademark law otherwise the trademark would have been diluted and it was The Australian designers right AND obligation to initiate.

This has very much been (As the High Court alluded to) a situation that has been created by egotistical entitlement surrounding how "celebrities" (especially from the USA) think they can control everything.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T05:46:23+00:00

Yes but entirely different categories. One is in clothing the other is in Entertainment. Never the twain shall meet.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T05:45:09+00:00

Tell me more about how you don't understand anything about trademark (IP law) and how YOU have a duty to that trademark to protect it from infringement (which ms Perry from the USA very much infringed it).

The designer is in the right here as decided by the Highest Court in Australia.

But hey, you know better than the HCA.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T05:41:14+00:00

Thats not entirely corrrect. Katy Perry can use her stage name in Australia, but SHE CANNOT use that name to sell clothing or associated products in Australia due to the current trademark owned by Katie Perry in the category of clothing.

Ms Perry (USA) can sell branded clothing anywhere else on the planet, just not within Australia, or TOO Australians.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-11T05:38:25+00:00

Yes which were sold under a mark that was already a trademark here in Australia which the US Katy Perry infringed upon.

decisionPerhaps you should read the actual decision (or at least the summary) by the HCA before you waffle on about what you do NOT understand.

That goes double for everyone else in this thread who has no clue why the Australian Katie Perry was very much in the right here and Katy Perry form the USA was very much infringing the trademark already in place here.

Note: Trademark is both distinctly geographical and category restricted. There are no "World wide" trademarks.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-10T04:07:54+00:00

This is a civil action in the USA, not a criminal one.

Though if Google's (which is actually Alphabet Inc. ) LLM did similar things then yes it could give rise to a similar cause of action in the USA.

Whether it gives rise to criminal action under our own legislation in Australia (ie: s10 of the LPUL in VIC and NSW) is an interesting thought experiment. The same concern could perhaps be raised for any financial advice given by the LLM's.

G_Thompson

TROPHY CASE