The problem with Deliberate Genericization: Lessons from a recent judgment of Federal Court
The decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Container Rotation Systems Pty Ltd v Intermodal Solutions (Group) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 161 represents a significant development in…
The “Mark Within a Mark”: How Composite Branding Protects Your Core Trade Mark
The decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Trafalgar Group Pty Ltd v Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd concerns two interconnected trade mark disputes relating to a device…
Trade Mark Infringement and the risks of imitation masked as a “tribute”
The case of Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd v In-N-Out Burgers, Inc [2020] FCAFC 235 is much more than a simple dispute over fast-food naming rights, i.e. it is a definitive lesson in the…
Animated Characters and the Limits of Trade Mark Infringement
The High Court of Australia’s decision in Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd [1963] HCA 66 remains a landmark judgment in the domain of trade mark…
Branding, Collaborations and the limitations of using a Name
When two brands share a common name, the legal dispute often shifts to how consumers perceive that name within the context of the marketplace. The recent decision by Justice…
Trade Mark Protection for Non-Traditional Marks in Australia
The concept of branding has evolved in the modern world to encompass more than just a company's name or logo. It entails adding a unique touch and leaving a lasting impression on…
Why Having a Registered Trade Mark Isn’t Always Enough?
What would happen when a well-established Australian energy company, which has spent years building a brand around a specific name, finds itself in a legal battle with a newcomer…
Intent to Use: A Critical Threshold in Trade Mark Law
When a business seeks to protect its brand in Australia, the law assumes a basic starting point, i.e. the applicant must actually intend to use that mark. It sounds simple, but a…
