If I register my trade mark, does that prevent someone from changing one letter in my trade mark and using that as their trade mark?

The Trade Marks Act 1995 (Commonwealth) says that a trade mark application must be rejected if it is likely to deceive or to cause confusion. It also says that a trade mark application must be rejected if it is identical, substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to an existing trade mark.

Of course, there are exceptions to these rules – especially where there is evidence that your competitor’s trade mark has been consistently used for much longer than your own. This allows them to claim that they have had honest and concurrent use of the trade mark.

A registered trade mark is indeed valuable, and if you haven’t already registered your trade mark, you should do so as soon as possible.

The case was about the “Optus TV Now” service provided by Optus, which was a digital television recording service for its users which allowed its users to download free-to-air television programmes and play them back on their devices at a later date. These devices could be their personal computers, mobile phones, or other mobile devices.

The service was used by Optus’s users to record NRL games, and NRL wasn’t happy with this. NRL brought proceedings before the Federal Court alleging that Optus had infringed its copyright. Telstra joined the proceedings as the exclusive licensee to the broadcast.

The decision made was very technical and was determined mostly on the questions of whether Optus should be considered the maker of the videos held in its servers, or if Optus could say that the videos were for private and domestic use.

In the end the Full Court considered that Optus retained possession at all times of the videos, the servers where it was stored in, and that while the playback process was automatic, Optus’s role in providing such a service cannot be disregarded when considering who was responsible for making copies of the video.

While it is arguable that this matter benefits television broadcasters it may also affect commercial data locker services such as “Dropbox” or even Apple’s “Cloud” service, as they similarly provide services where their users can upload recordings to their data locker.

If you are a small tech start up looking to offer commercial data locker services to your users, you should take heed of this decision and obtain legal advice before you proceed.

As the registered owner of a trade mark however, it becomes chiefly your duty to enforce any infringements over your registered trade mark and to defend any actions by your competitors to register trade marks which look similar to your own. A failure to act quickly in these matters may result in your brand losing its impact and distinctiveness.

Enforcing Infringements

One of the more common scenarios occurs where a competitor is using a trade mark which is similar or identical to your registered trade mark. As previously discussed you should always act quickly to protect your rights. Your clients could be confused and mistake your competitor’s products for your own, and that degrades the goodwill for your product. Your competitor is also possibly profiting from the goodwill for your product, goodwill that has probably been developed through your own marketing efforts.

If a stern letter from your solicitor does not resolve the situation then you would seek orders from the court restraining your competitors from behaving in this matter. In certain circumstances you may seek from your competitor all of the profits they made while using your mark.

Objecting to Trade Mark Registrations

You should always be vigilant about what your competitors are doing. This also extends to what kind of trade marks they intend to register. While part of the trade mark registration process includes an examination process by an examiner of trade marks, the examiner may not be well acquainted with the industry and your competitors. This is why the trade mark registration process also includes an opposition period, where you would formally object to the registration of your opponent’s trade mark. The window of opportunity for doing this is quite small, so you must be alert at all times of what your opponents intend to do.

At the end of the day, only you can enforce your rights over your trade marks. You should always be vigilant and mindful of what the market and what your competitors are up to.

The Full Federal Court today unanimously upheld the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s appeal in the matter of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google Inc [2012] FCAFC 49.

In this decision the Full Court found that Google had published advertisements on the results pages of their Australian website that were misleading and deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in breach of Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The Full Court also ordered Google to put into place a consumer law compliance programme.

Background

When the matter was first brought to the court, the ACCC alleged that Google had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a number of advertisements on Google’s search results page. The advertisements that were being complained about contained product names, business names, or details that were not associated with the advertiser – for example, a user would click on a advertisement for “Gucci” bags but were instead led to a competitor’s website instead. Essentially, those businesses bought the use of their competitor’s keywords.

The first judge to hear the case thought that Google had not made those representations and Google merely communicated representations made by the advertiser. Justice Nicholas ruled that Google did not breach the Trade Practices Act.

The ACCC appealed the primary judge’s decision in relation to four of the eleven advertisements pleaded at first instance.

The central issue for determination on appeal was whether the primary judge made a mistake in finding that Google did not “make” the representations contained in the four advertisements the subject of the appeal. On appeal, the ACCC was successful and the decision of the lower court was reversed.

The Full Court considered:

“Here Google created the message which it presents. Google’s search engine calls up and displays the response to the user’s query. It is Google’s technology which creates that which is displayed. Google did not merely repeat or pass on a statement by the advertiser: what is displayed in response to the user’s search query is not the equivalent of Google saying here is a statement by an advertiser which is passed on for what it is worth.”

While this is a cautionary tale for advertisers, we consider that this ruling primarily affect search engines or other electronic advertisers who tailor make their advertising to suit match their user’s search enquiries. It goes without saying that you should never use your competitor’s advertising or branding. The ACCC will catch on – and it’s likely that Google will be a lot more stringent in checking if your SEO strategy is legitimate.

The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2012 is a wide effect on intellectual property legislation in Australia, and makes amendments to the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), Designs Act 2003 (Cth), Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994 (Cth) and Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Most of the new changes will not come into effect until 12 months from the date on which the Bill becomes law.

The Bill will affect the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and will do the following:

1. Make it slightly easier to register a trade mark.
2. Streamline and speed up the opposition process.
3. Allow the Federal Magistrates Court to determine Trade Mark disputes.
4. Impose harsher penalties to counterfeiters.
5. Allows the Courts greater discretion in relation to determining damages

The Bill may be found at the following link: The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2012 

We consider that these changes are largely positive in nature, and hopefully, you do too! To find out more about the changes to the laws, do not hesitate to contact us using our quick enquiry form.

Why do you need to do these due diligence searches? This is because intellectual property laws may differ between countries and what may be permitted in the country where you sourced the goods may not necessarily be permitted in Australia. The source country may also be lax in policing their intelllectual property laws and you may be unwittingly purchasing – and selling – counterfeit products.

If you do not do your due diligence, you may be subject to legal action from the real owners of the products. They may demand from you that you surrender your stock as well as any profits that you have made through the sale of these products. They may also seek other damages, depending on the extent on the breach.

The above happened to a client of ours, however fortunately the matter was resolved without proceeding to court. The case of Facton Ltd & Ors v Dawood (No.2) [2011] FMCA 933 also is a cautionary tale in relation to these matters. In this case G-Star brought legal proceedings against Mr Dawood, alleging that Mr Dawood sold counterfeit G-Star products. Mr Dawood initially admitted that he had purchased 15 products and sold those products in his store; at court he gave evidence that his sales assistant purchased those products from an unidentified person who had purchased the products while that person was abroad. Mr Dawood also claimed, in a letter, that he did not know that selling “copy brands” was illegal as they were “accessable (in) any market and in many stores”.

As previously mentioned these matters can be serious. In the above case Mr Dawood was ordered to pay to G-Star a total of $63,000, including the cost of their lawyers – over the sale of a relatively small number of products!

At the end of the day, if you are in business and you source your products from overseas, do your due diligence and make sure that you are operating within the law.

Use your Trade Mark – Trade Mark registration can be subject to removal if you do not use the Trade Mark for a continuous period of 3 years.

Make others aware that the Trade Mark is registered – You can do this by using or displaying a ® symbol next to your Trade Mark.

Be aware of your Competitors - While you have a Trade Mark registration, your competitors may use marks similar to yours – it will be your responsibility to be aware of what your Competitors are up to.

Protect your Trade Mark - A registered Trade Mark is an exclusive right to use the Trade Mark in Australia for the goods and services the Trade Mark is registered in. If a Competitor infringes on your registered Trade Mark, you must be prepared to take action to protect those rights.

Renew your Trade Mark – Trade Mark registration lasts for 10 years and you must be aware of the renewal dates or risk your Trade Mark registration expiring!

Wikipedia, along with a number of other prominent websites, shut down their services. Google also participated by replacing their logo with a blacked-out sign.

While these laws are US laws, the passage of these laws could potentially affect Australian-based internet businesses who also trade in the US, especially those who operate websites which allow its users to contribute or comment on the website.

The controversial parts of these bills allow for intellectual property owners to seek an order against a variety of other entities, such as an internet service provider, a provider of advertising services, or an internet search engine, and effectively compel these entities to exclude or deny access to a website which may have infringing material. The bills are drawn in a very broad manner and can potentially end up targetting both the good and the bad.

A common example given is where a website like Google is ordered to deny access to a website which has been deemed to contain infringing material.

Both Wikipedia and Google recognise that protecting the rights of intellectual property owners are important, however both of them consider that these bills in their current forms are detrimental to the development of the internet.

Even though Australian-based internet businesses are not subject to US laws, the legislation may result in cutting these businesses off from the US market as well as from search engines, advertisers, or payment or transaction providers (such as PayPal), based in the US. The result could be disastrous.

It is difficult to say what kind of legislation would be passed in the end – all we can advise is that Australian-based internet businesses should keep an eye out for developments in this area.

Copyright protection is automatic – you do not need to apply for copyright in Australia, and copyright protection is afforded when the work is first written down or recorded in some way. A copyright notice does not need to be fixed to the work – it serves primarily as a reminder that the work is protected and who the owner of the work is.

The general rule is that the author of the work is the owner of the copyright, however there are several other exceptions to this including work done by employees, film and sound recordings where there are numerous contributors, or work done by State, Territory, or Federal Government.

Copyright generally lasts for the life of the relevant creator, plus 70 years. As copyright has evolved over a period of time and legislation in has changed as well, the lifespan of copyright may change depending on when the work was first created or published.

Once copyright protection has expired over a work, it becomes public domain and may be freely used by anyone.

In general, copyright protects:

• Literary Works, including articles, novels, poems, song lyrics, scripts, or computer programs
• Artistic Works, including paintings, drawings, sculptures, architectural plans, and photographs
• Dramatic Works, including choreography, screenplays, and plays
• Films and sound recordings

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, styles, techniques, or information. Copyright does not protect names, titles or slogans.

The Australian Federal Government has taken concrete steps towards reforming the way that business names are managed in Australia and has passed the Business Names Registration Act 2011 in November 2011. The Act establishes a National Business Names Register which will be administered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, and will streamline and consolidate the various business name registration schemes in each state and territory.

The objectives of the reforms are to:

• Allow for online applications and registrations for business names and ABNs
• Provide an online database to allow ease of access and searching
• Streamline and consolidate the various schemes into one scheme
• Reduce costs
• Avoid confusion over similar names
• Determine if names are unsuitable or undesirable

The National Business Names Register is expected to be operational by mid-2012.

Having an unregistered trade mark however does carry a number of risks. In the worst case scenario, a competitor may seek registration of a similar mark and attempt to exclude you from using the mark.

While it is possible to defend your use of the trade mark – after all, you had it first – going through this process can be both mentally and financially draining. In order to be successful at defending any litigation, you would need to show evidence that you had used the trade mark before your competitor used the trade mark. Putting together evidence, especially where you have had the trade mark for some time, can be tedious.

It is no suprise that some traders choose to re-brand rather than contest the issue, however re-branding carries a cost of its own.

When starting up a new business, or using a new logo or trade mark, you should carefully consider whether seeking a trade mark application with respect to the logo or trade mark is appropriate.

But what about intangible assets, such as your trade marks? How can you account for that? Prospective purchasers will surely ask questions such as:

• Does this business really own the mark?
• How long has it been used for?
• Are there any competitors in the same market that use a similar mark?
• If I purchase the business and its good will, will I be forced to abandon the mark in the future?

Fortunately a registered trade mark is the easiest way to conclusively show that you own the trade mark and your interest is noted on the trade mark.

The transfer of the registered trade mark is also simple – all that is required is for the purchaser to provide to the relevant government authority, IP Australia, a copy of the document that assigns the trade mark to the purchaser, as well as completing some other forms.

A registered trade mark can increase the value of the sale of your business, as well as provide to your prospective purchasers peace of mind.

Comparative advertising basically is where, through advertisements, a company directly compares their products with the competitor’s products, and shows to the public that their products are better than their competitor’s. At heart, this is not illegal, however as Chatime recently found out in the case of Easyway Australia Pty Ltd v Infinite Plus Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 351, extreme care must be taken when doing this. The general principle is that your comparative advertisements must not be misleading or deceptive.

The dispute in this matter was between two asian bubble tea franchises, the popular “Easy Way” franchise and the “Chatime” franchise, operated by Infinite Plus Pty Limited.

Infinite Plus published advertisements in a 16 page booklet, a chinese magazine, and on the internet. In those advertisements,  Chatime claimed that its products were healthier, fresher, more nutritious and of a higher quality than its competitor. While the material does not strictly contain any of Easyway’s registered trade marks, the materials did contain multiple references to “the EASY WAY”, in a font and colour scheme similar to Easyway’s colour scheme.

The trial judge decided that despite the advertisements not directly referring to Easy Way, most reasonable people who consumed bubble tea products would know what those veiled references were referring to. The trial judge ultimately said:

“The representations which I have found were made by Chatime in the booklet are quite general and unqualified in their terms. No attempt was made to support them in the offending publications with hard facts or with any reasoned or logical argument. In the proceeding, Chatime conceded that it had no basis for making any of them. They were false and therefore misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive at the time when they were made.”

Chatime was ordered to:

1. Stop distributing the advertising material
2. Hand over any remaining material to Easyway to be destroyed
3. Issue corrective advertising subject to Section 80 of the Trade Practices Act

In the end, the lessons learnt here are clear – be careful when engaging in comparative advertising. In fact, unless you have got all of your facts right about your competitor’s products, you shouldn’t do it at all. In addition to this, your competitors products may change as time passes. You can’t provide a “technical” argument either – your facts may be technically correct but as long as it is misleading you may end up in hot soup.

Because registration is at a state level there is nothing preventing a competitor in another state to register the same business name in that state, and this may potentially stop you from being able to trade in that state under that business name.

Fortunately in the last few years the Australian Federal Government has been considering the system. In 2012 ASIC will take over from the state system and will start managing and administering a National Business Names Register. All old business names registration will be transitioned over – where there is a conflict there will be a further notation indicating where the business name was originally registered.

For more information about the new system, visit ASIC’s website.

In one example, our client invited submissions to syndicate articles on their blog site and newsletter, and a business colleague who answered provided a sample article for  publication. On further enquiry, we found that the article had been published and reproduced across multiple websites several different times and each of those websites  belonged to a different competitor. When asked that business colleague indicated he had ‘paid someone to write the articles’ for him. We asked him about the nature of the engagement and the corresponding license for copyright and reproduction. There was no further response and so we advised our client to not publish the article.

It is not possible to justify or even assess the risks associated with reproducing or publishing an article or other web content without clearly understanding the intellectual property rights, copyright, licensing and reproduction permissions associated with that article or web content.

When engaging someone to write articles for you, we recommend clarifying who owns the article’s copyright, and what are the permissions regarding publication and reproduction.

Trade Mark Enquiry

For more information on our trade mark services and quotes on our professional fees, please complete the Quick Enquiry Form. One of our experienced trade mark lawyers will contact you to explore how we can improve your business and add to your balance sheet by realising your intellectual property through trade mark registration.

Ern Phang
Trade Mark Lawyer
enquiry[at]trademark-lawyer.com.au

This website is supported by Phang Legal, an incorporated legal practice based in Parramatta CBD providing professional legal services in trade mark advice, representation and trade mark registration to businesses across Sydney and Australia. Ern Phang is the solicitor director of Phang Legal. Ern Phang is not a trade mark attorney.

Not many people are aware that the popular  Australian Folk Tune was written by Melbourne teacher Marion Sinclair in 1934. Larrikin Music owns the rights to the song and were seeking a percentage of the profits to the song as compensation.  An short extract of the song appears in a short flute solo in the song “I come from the land down under”, and this went on unnoticed for a long period of time.

When the matter was first heard, the primary judge considered that what was taken from Kookaburra was not trivial in either a qualitative or a quantitative sense. Another question that was dealt with was quantity as opposed to quality – although the judge accepted that quantity was a secondary question in relation to quality, he considered that almost 50% of Kookaburra had been reproduced.

EMI did not agree with the findings of the primary judge and appealed the matter on a number of grounds.

At the appeal, Justice Emmett considered that:

“A similarity between part of Kookaburra and the flute phrase is clearly perceptible. True it is that that similarity went largely unnoticed for in excess of 20 years, notwithstanding that each work is said to be an iconic Australian work. Nevertheless, the question is one of objective similarity. The aural resemblance need not be resounding or obvious. The relevant test is not the effect upon a casual listener of the whole of the versions of Down Under in the Impugned Recordings. Sensitised though the primary judge may have been to the similarity, it is not erroneous to direct oneself to the relevant parts of the works, to listen to the works a number of times, and to accept the assistance of the views of experts, in determining the question of objective similarity. In those respects, I do not consider that the primary judge erred.”

This case shows us that there is no hard and fast rule about copying or altering other people’s work – it only matters that a substantial part, or a readily identifiable similarity, can be identified with respect to the original and the offending works. We often hear from laymen that “It’s okay to reproduce the work as long as we change 20% of the work”. This is not true, and this case is a good example showing that such rule does not exist.

Everything, if your goal is to build on your business’s brand name and goodwill. Careful selection of an identifiable and distinguishable brand name, that can be continued to be used over time, is an important part of building your business.  Some research and planning needs to be put into place when going through this process.  It is important that when doing so you not only avoid stepping on anyone else’s toes, but you also are able to secure your own rights over your brand name and goodwill. One of the ways that your brand name and goodwill can be secured is through trade mark registration. Generally trade mark registration gives you exclusive use of the registered mark within Australia over the classes of goods or services that the trade mark has been registered in.

Last year’s conflict between Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and Arnotts is a good example of what not to do. Krispy Kreme created two new doughnuts meant to appeal to the Australian public and heavily marketed these doughnuts – a chocolate and marshmallow doughnut called “Rocky Road” and a pink glazed doughnut with coconut sprinkles called “Iced Dough-Vo”. Advertising and marketing for the new doughnuts went out across the country, but within a week they were pulled back after Arnotts threatened legal action. This was because Arnotts was the registered trade mark owner of “Iced Vo-Vo”, a pink frosted doughnut with coconut sprinkles.

No doubt this cost Krispy Kreme a tidy sum of money. As a small business owner, you may not be able to afford making such a mistake – so look before you leap and plan ahead when it comes to your branding!

The immediate result is that ISPs do not need to contact customers or terminate the provision of their services to customers just because they received a notice from copyright owners.

A full text of the reasons for judgment can be found here.

Watch this space for further information about the decision.

If you sell items or products under a brand name, you should also check if the name of your brand is similar to or would conflict with other products on the market. A thorough search of trade marks, brand names and business names should be carried out before settling on a name for your business or product.

You should also be mindful that a registered business name is not the same as a Trade Mark.

There is nothing worse than settling on a business or brand name and embarking on an extensive marketing project, only to receive a letter from a competitor saying that your business or brand name is similar to theirs. Failure to do the proper checks and searches may result in an expensive re-branding exercise.

If, after carrying out a careful search on trade marks and business names, you find that there are no similar sounding trade marks or business names, you should consider if the additional benefits of registering your business name or brand name as a trade mark.

Registering your business name or brand name as a trade mark can protect you from other people claiming that your mark is identical or similar to theirs. In addition to this, you may be able to stop others from using your registered trade mark.

It is always best to “look before you leap”, especially when it comes to these matters.

It is important to note that business name registration does not give ownership of the name, nor does it provide protection to the name. At the very best, a business name registration prevents other businesses from registering that name. This is because the primary purpose of the Business Names Act 2002 is to provide to the public a register that the public can inspect. This allows the public to basically verify the identity of the person or company carrying on business under a name.

The NSW Department of Fair Trading is responsible to administer and register business names. The NSW Department of Fair Trading also has some discretion to deny registration of a business name if it is “undesirable” or if it falls under a category of names which cannot be registered.

Keep in mind as well that a business name can be registered in one state – but can be registered by another person or business in a different state!

If you would like to protect your business name and stop other people from using your business name, you should consider the benefits of registering your business name as a trade mark. A registered trade mark can give you the exclusive right to use of that trade mark within Australia – not only can it protect you from other businesses challenging your trade mark, it gives you the right to stop others from using your trade mark. In fact, a registered trade mark may prevail over any protection given by the registration of a business name.

In addition to this, trade marks are considered proprietary – it is an intangible asset that adds value to your business. As of such it can be sold, licensed, assigned, and even used as security. Proof of registration is considered good evidence towards ownership of a trade mark.

It is important to understand the distinction between a registered trade mark and a registered business name. If you carry on business under a registered business name, you should consider bolstering your protection by registering your business name as a trade mark.

Following a number of viral and successful YouTube parody videos, Theodore Saidden, creator of “Superwog”, decided to take things to the next level and capitalise on his success – by selling t-shirts.

Theodore sought to register a “Superwog” stylised logo as a trade mark and submitted an application to register the mark to IP Australia. Despite its popularity among university and school students, DC Comics, the owner of the registered “Superman” trade mark, is not impressed. DC Comics has lodged a notice of opposition to the application.

The “Superwog” mark is quite similar to the “Superman” mark. It retains the classic diamond shield and replaces the letter “S” in the middle of the shield with a stylised letter “W”. In addition to this the colour scheme is different – the “Superman” mark is gold and red, while the “Superwog” mark is black and silver.

Will DC Comics be successful in its efforts? The Copyright Act 1968 after all, does provide exemptions for parodies and satire. However, we are not examining the case from a copyright perspective. The Trade Marks Act 1995 does not provide an exemption for parodies and satire. It follows then, that if a mark is unable to be distinguished from another similar mark, and as a result, deceives or causes confusion, then the registration of the mark must fail. This may be a serious issue to consider, especially in the case of parodies, where the parodied mark must be similar to the original mark (otherwise, it wouldn’t be a parody, would it?).

In this situation, the question that needs to be answered is this: “Will a large portion of the general public believe that the Superwog mark is associated with the owners of the Superman mark?”

One of the matters to take into account when determining this question is the success of “Superwog” on its own. If it is seen by the general public as an obvious parody and in no way affiliated to “Superman”, then there is a good chance that the trade mark registration application may stand up. However, that in itself will be a difficult decision to make. Different people may come to different conclusions about the mark, after all.

In recent times, many young entertainers and bloggers have become successful by utilising social media to entertain their audiences through parody and satire. Some consideration will be needed before taking such new found fame and success to the next level. As always, it is always preferred to build your own brand from scratch – however given the time and effort required to build a brand, it might be easier to build a brand on the back of another. However, capitalising this may prove to be difficult, Mr Saidden may appreciate.

Clients have often asked how we are able to offer low-cost fixed price trade mark registrations, and the key is around providing clients with simple straight-forward solutions.

We acknowledge that more complicated scenarios involving adverse reports or objections and the like are not featured in the same low-cost fixed price policy, but that is simply because there is generally more work required in dealing with those complicated scenarios. In those scenarios, we are committed to still offering a fixed price quote, but that quote will account for the scope of work appropriately.

The low-cost fixed price trade mark registrations provides clients with an attractive alternative to other service offerings from other professionals. We believe small business clients will appreciate the no-frills approach to minimise any expense incurred in registering their trade mark and therefore maximise their return and rate of return on protecting their trade mark. We focus on the commercial reasons for trade mark registration and rely on small businesses justifying the benefits for themselves. When compared to other service offerings, we are confident that our clients are receiving the best value for money in terms of experience and expertise available in the market.

Dedicated to improvement

With each and every business case and trade mark registration application, we review our processes to ensure that meet the expectations of our clients and achieve the goals that they engage us to achieve. Ensuring simple straight-forward solutions to our clients helps them because we lower our costs and pass the savings to our clients through low-cost fixed price trade mark registrations.

Trade Mark Enquiry

For more information on our trade mark services and quotes on our professional fees, please complete the Quick Enquiry Form. One of our experienced trade mark lawyers will contact you to explore how we can improve your business and add to your balance sheet by realising your intellectual property through trade mark registration.

Ern Phang
Trade Mark Lawyer
enquiry[at]trademark-lawyer.com.au

This website is supported by Phang Legal, an incorporated legal practice based in Parramatta CBD providing professional legal services in trade mark advice, representation and trade mark registration to businesses across Sydney and Australia. Ern Phang is the solicitor director of Phang Legal. Ern Phang is not a trade mark attorney.

The case in particular is Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd –v- Reed International Books Pty Limited t/as Lexis-Nexis [2010] FCA 984. The full decision can be read here.

Fairfax publishes the Australian Financial Review (AFR), while Lexisnexis operates the ABIX service which provides daily extracts of a number of sources including the AFR. It is similar to a news aggregation service. Extracts of AFR had been appearing in ABIX for over 20 years.

Fairfax wanted to stop Lexisnexis from using AFR’s headlines and brought proceedings against Lexisnexis for infringement of copyright in the headlines of the articles. No proceedings were brought for the articles themselves. Fairfax argued that the headlines were copyright work by themselves, or was a substantial part of work that was copyright (the articles or the newspaper).

Lexisnexis argued that copyright did not subsist in headlines, and that it had a defence under the Copyright Act as it was reporting news and cited the original source.

The court decided that headlines were not capable of being literary works that can be protected by copyright. The court decided that headlines generally are “simply too insubstantial and too short to qualify for copyright protection as a literary works”.

In addition to this the court considered that Lexisnexis could rely on a defence in the Copyright Act in relation to reporting the news. The court found that Lexisnexis had invested skill and effort in preparing the extracts, and the use of the headline was a proper citation to the original article.

Naturally the biggest implication for this decision is for news aggregators or services that summarise the work of others and distribute it to their readers. This decision effectively allows these services to continue using the title or headline of the original source in their abstracts – as long as it cites the original source.

Care must still be taken by these services in that they do not reproduce substantial parts of the original article. This will certainly infringe on the copyright of those articles.

In this case, Lleyton Hewitt Marketing (LHM) had made an application to register a trade mark in 2007 with the words “come on” and a logo featuring a man doing a fist pump. However, a somewhat similar trade mark had been registered by Mr Sheils in 2004. After Mr Sheils objected by way of a letter to LHM’s trade mark being registered, LHM bit back by seeking Mr Sheils’ trade mark be removed. LHM argued that not only was the fist pump a recognisable, proprietary gesture of Lleyton Hewitt, the professional tennis player, but that Mr Sheils had registered the trade mark in bad faith and had never used the trade mark in the course of trade within Australia. LHM pointed out that the trade mark had seen extremely limited use and what little use it experienced was not for commercial purposes.

Mr Sheils presented evidence that he had developed the trade mark in 2004 with the help of his daughters and that the fist pump was a gesture of success that other sportsmen from Australia used. Following the successful registration of his trade mark in 2004 he tried, without much success, to gain support for the use of his mark on various sporting goods and apparels. Some of the goods produced, such as shirts, were sold, however a majority of the goods that were marked were used as samples in his bid to popularise the mark. The last time the goods were used was in 2008.

The primary matter before the hearing officer was if Mr Sheils’ trade mark could be removed for non-use. The hearing officer concluded that, even if the use of the trade mark was localised and only a limited number of the goods were sold, nevertheless there was a geniune intention to use the trade mark for commercial use.

While it is true that a registered trade mark can be removed due to non-use, this case demonstrates that even limited use of a registered trade mark will continue to protect your interest in the registered trade mark. Mr Sheils took active steps to preserve evidence of his use of his registered trade mark and this ultimately was the reason of his success in this particular case.

If you have developed a brand to use for your business and you are serious about growing your brand, you should consider seeking protection as soon as possible.

In 2009 trouble brewed between Katie Perry, a Sydney Fashion Designer and Katy Perry, the popular American singer. Katie initially looked at registering a trade mark in her name in about 2006, however put it off until much later, in 2008. The trade mark went through the usual process without any objections, however a short while before the trade mark registration was issued, representatives from Katy Perry attempted to stop the process by objecting to the trade mark.

The case was heard in 2009, resulting in Katy Perry withdrawing the objection, however this situation could have been avoided entirely had Katie Perry proceeded with her application in 2006.

The lesson learned from this is simple: “Why put off something that could be done today?” If you are serious about growing your brand, you should seek protection of your brand as soon as possible.

Of course, you should develop your trade mark or your brand accordingly. Do a search on the internet. Check the trade marks search provided by IP Australia, and even do an ASIC search to be doubly sure.

In MGM Grand Hotel LLC v Surfside Estates Pty Limited, Surfside Estates Pty Limited, an Australian company based in Queensland, made an application to register the trade mark “studio 54 nightclub”. The MGM Grand Hotel, a famous hotel in the United States of America, lodged an objection to the application and made two applications of its own to register the “Studio 54″ trade marks in Australia.

MGM had owned and operated a night club in its Las Vegas Venue called “Studio 54″ , which was a replica of a similarly named, infamous New York night club that operated in the 1970s. The original night club had exchanged hands a number of times and eventually shut down in the 1980s. MGM was the current owner of the trade mark in the United States and had operated its Las Vegas venue since 1997.

It is important to note that MGM had never traded or operated under this trade mark in Australia. Nevertheless, MGM argued that the trade mark “Studio 54″ had gained an international reputation, and that this reputation should be protected. MGM submitted evidence of this reputation by providing evidence of the fame of the original night club as well as the fame of its current night club in Las Vegas. MGM tried to demonstrate that Australians would have known of the trade mark through the use of the internet as well the number of Australians who stayed at its hotel over the years.

The hearing officer considered the matter but determined that there was not one but two reputations  – the reputation of the original night club, and the reputation of the current night club operated by MGM. The hearing officer found that while there was some evidence of Australians being aware of the reputation of the original night club, there wasn’t enough evidence to support the assertion that Australians were aware of the reputation of the night club in Las Vegas. In addition to this the hearing officer found that the original night club closed in the 1980s, and that MGM only started operating its replica in Las Vegas in about 1997. The hearing officer concluded that most people thought that the two night clubs were not one and the same, but were different.

Ultimately, the hearing officer thought that MGM’s Studio 54 in Las Vegas had not earned a well-known reputation in Australia. Accordingly the hearing officer dismissed the opposition.

One of the lessons to be learnt from this case is that if you are opposing someone else from registering a trade mark that is similar or identical to yours, unless your trade mark has already been registered, you will need to show the court strong evidence of your trade mark’s reputation or use in Australia. Naturally, if you are proactive and if you register your trade mark first, this issue might be easier to deal with.

The other lesson to be learned is that when purchasing a business or a trade mark that has acquired a certain reputation, you will need to plan carefully to make sure that the public sees a continuity in the business or trade mark. In MGM’s case the public thought that the two night clubs were different – this led to it’s loss. It is important to make sure that the trade mark’s reputation is consistent throughout the life of the trade mark. Failure to do so could have adverse consequences!

The failure to adequately protect your brand may have serious consequences. You may have to rebrand yourself. You may be exposed to unnecessary litigation. Either way, you risk losing the goodwill that your business has built up in the course of your trade. One of the ways to protect yourself is through the use of a Registered Trade Mark. A Trade Mark is a visual representation of your brand and serves to signal to others the goodwill and quality of the products or services of your business. Registration is carried out with IP Australia, an Australian Government body, and gives you exclusive rights to use the Registered Trade Mark anywhere within Australia.

A Registered Trade Mark also makes enforcement of your rights a lot easier – without a Registered Trade Mark, you will have you rely on common law principles as well as actions under the Trade Practices Act – and these have a higher hurdle to clear.

You may have looked at Registered Trade Marks in the past but you have been unclear what the process is or that it would be too expensive for you to undertake. We can do all of that for you and provide these services to you at a competitive rate. Why delay? Be proactive. Protect your brand today.

Intellectual Property Explorer is a new, free online tool for small businesses to keep track of their intellectual property assets and conduct an audit of all their intellectual property assets. It helps with identifying, analysing, and reviewing the various intellectual property assets that your business may own.

This tool is a public initiative developed by the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) and the intellectual property offices of Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

In this case Mars Australia is the owner of Whiskas, a brand of cat food. The company had for some time used a particular shade of purple in their packaging and marketing materials. The colour was called “Whiskas Purple” and it had been developed for that particular use by their team in Europe. After using this colour in their packaging and marketing materials for some time, Mars Australia sought to register that colour as a trade mark.

One of the questions before the court was if the colour that was used distinguished Whiskas from other brands of cat food. The court found that:

1. Mars Australia had used the colour extensively in its packaging and marketing materials before and after they had submitted the trade mark application
2. The colour was carefully developed and chosen to create a stronger brand identity.
3. Other traders have used various shades of purple on similar products; however they have not been using those colours as trade marks. Rather, the use of the colour purple in other products has been to indicate different varieties within a product range.

Mars Australia also submitted evidence of a survey it conducted in May 2009 that found that consumers generally associated the colour, Whiskas purple, to the goods.

Accordingly the court found that the colour, Whiskas purple, did function as a trade mark and was capable of distinguishing Mars Australia’s goods.

Registration of a colour as a trade mark is allowable under the Trade Marks Act 1995. It is a relatively new area that has given rise to numerous disputes over the years. Cadbury had previously applied for protection for its use of its purple colour. Similarly, BP has protection over the colours green and yellow.

While it is exciting to see that non-traditional trade marks are becoming more popular, this case has shown us that it is difficult to gain protection of these types of trade marks. Businesses wanting protection over non-traditional trade marks must not only develop the trade mark also promote and market the trade mark extensively, to the point where it is able to be distinguished from others.

In Australia, a trade mark attorney is a professional person who is registered under federal legislation to help clients take advantage of and protect their trade marks and associated intellectual property rights. Services may include registering the trade marks in Australia or overseas. Trade marks attorneys hold tertiary qualifications and are trained in laws relating to trade marks, and have some understanding of the law relating to intellectual property.

What is a trade mark lawyer?

A trade mark lawyer is a lawyer who practices in the are of trade marks. We are not trade mark attorneys, we are trade mark lawyers. We are commercial lawyers who assist our small business clients with the legal issues in their business, including issues regarding trade marks and intellectual property. Trade mark protection or trade mark registration is not our area speciality, rather just one aspect of our overall service offering.

Advantages of using a trade mark lawyer

As trade mark lawyers offering services in trade mark registration and intellectual property, our diverse service offering across commercial law and trade mark law is an advantage to clients. Having a broader understanding of the law and different practice areas allows us to provide our clients with the solutions that they need in scope of their overall business requirements.

For clients in small business, we recognise that price is just as important as value and that there is always more than one perspective to any issue, and more than one solution to any problem. Avoiding unnecessary costs and delay, we make it clear to our clients that issues or problems that they face in small business may not be solely related to or caused by business branding, trade marks or trade mark registration.

Trade mark lawyers – we provide more, for less

As trade mark lawyers providing services in trade mark registration, we provide our clients with cost effective alternative to a trade mark attorney. Aside from low-cost fixed price trade mark registration services, we also offer simple straight-forward solutions across a range of services across our commercial law practice tailored to meet the requirements of our clients and their small businesses. We avoid using ‘scare tactics’ or ‘selling on fear’, rather promote the benefits against the costs and the risks within a commercial context and in a plain language and an easy-to-understand manner. We understand our clients and we understand small business.

Trade Mark Enquiry

For more information on our trade mark services and quotes on our professional fees, please complete the Quick Enquiry Form. One of our experienced trade mark lawyers will contact you to explore how we can improve your business and add to your balance sheet by realising your intellectual property through trade mark registration.

Ern Phang
Trade Mark Lawyer
enquiry[at]trademark-lawyer.com.au

This website is supported by Phang Legal, an incorporated legal practice based in Parramatta CBD providing professional legal services in trade mark advice, representation and trade mark registration to businesses across Sydney and Australia. Ern Phang is the solicitor director of Phang Legal. Ern Phang is not a trade mark attorney.

Anyone can oppose your trade mark application. Should someone oppose your trade mark application, they must file a Notice of Opposition with IP Australia and serve the notice on you. The notice must set out their reasons for opposing your trade mark application. There are numerous grounds for opposing your trade mark application and they are set out in the Trade Marks Act 1995, however the most common grounds for opposing the registration of a trade mark are:

1. The trade mark is identical or very similar to another registered (or pending) trade mark.
2. The trade mark should have been rejected at the examination stage, and why it should have been rejected.
3. There are allegations that you are not the true owner of the trade mark.
4. There are allegations that you have registered the trade mark in bad faith or you do not intend to use the trade mark.

Once a Notice of Opposition has been filed and served, the opponent has 3 months to file evidence-in-support of its opposition. You then have 3 months to file evidence-in-answer to the evidence-in-support, and consequently, the opponent then has another 3 months to file evidence-in-reply to the evidence-in-answer. The evidence should be set out in declaratory, affidavit, and documentary form.

Once IP Australia has received all evidence, it is in a position to decide the matter. If neither you nor your opponent requests for a hearing before a Registrar, the Registrar can decide the matter without a hearing. The Registrar’s decision can be reviewed but only the Federal Court can review its decision. If you are successful, the trade mark becomes registrable. Please refer to The Trade Mark Registration Process (Simple and Unopposed) to see what happens after this.

Trade mark oppositions should be considered litigation. It can take up a lot of time and can also be quite costly. If you have an application which is being opposed, we can assist you by managing your case and preparing evidence and submissions in support of your application.

A flowchart of the opposition process appears below:

Trade Mark Process - Responding to Oppositions

Download this flowchart: Trade Mark Process – Responding to Oppositions

Lion Nathan denied infringement, and cross-claimed, seeking removal of Gallo Winery’s trade mark from the register. Lion Nathan alleged that Gallo Winery did not actively market or trade the goods in Australia and as a result of non-use over 3 years, the trade mark should be removed.

Gallo Winery itself did not actively sell the wine in Australia, however there was evidence that a wholesaler imported and sold about 41 bottles of the wine. This was done at the time without the knowledge of Gallo Winery.

Initially the Federal Court found that the Australian sales were done without Gallo Winery’s knowledge and so, they were not “using” the trade mark.  The Federal Court initially ruled that the trade mark should be removed from the register for non-use.

The case was appealed and eventually found itself before the High Court. The High Court considered that even if the goods were sold in Australia without the knowledge of the owner, the owner is considered using the trade mark. It is not necessary for the trade mark owner to actively participate in selling the goods – it doesn’t even matter if they knew that the goods were being sold or not, so long as the goods are being circulated in the Australian market.

Consequently the court held that Gallo Winery’s trade mark was valid and that Lion Nathan had infringed on it.

This case demonstrates that a registered trade mark is quite powerful and little use of the trade mark does not mean non-use of the trade mark.

The more important lesson to learn is that these matters could have been avoided by doing the proper checks and searches before promoting or marketing the brand. Brand owners need to be careful in selecting a brand or a trade mark to market even if, on the surface, the trade mark is for a different good or class of goods.

If IP Australia concludes that your trade mark application is not suitable for registration, it will refuse to accept the application and issue an adverse report listing down their reasonings behind their refusal. Some of the more common reasons for refusal are:

1. The trade mark does distinguish the good or service.
2. The trade mark contains words or phrases that other traders are likely to use.
3. The trade mark is identical or substantially similar to another trade mark.

An adverse report does not end the application. If you have been issued with an adverse report, IP Australia will give you 15 months from the time the report was issued for you to address their concerns. During this time you should put together affidavit and documentary evidence showing that the trade mark is suitable. Some of the evidence commonly put fowards are:

1. The current use of the trade mark.
2. How long the trade mark has been in use.
3. How the trade mark is different from other people’s trade marks.

Once evidence has been submitted, IP Australia will reconsider your application. If, despite the additional evidence, they do not change their mind, you can elect to have the matter heard before a registrar. Should that hearing fail, the only avenue open to you is to appeal the registrar’s decision before the Federal Court.

If you are successful, the application is accepted and it will be advertised in due course. Please refer to The Trade Mark Registration Process (Simple and Unopposed) to see what happens after this.

Responding to an adverse report can be difficult. We can assist you in this process by assisting you with the preparation of evidence and submissions for IP Australia, or if necessary preparing the matter to be heard before a registrar.

A simplified flowchart of this process appears below:

Download this flowchart: Trade Mark Process – Responding to an Averse Report

In our commitment to provide low-cost trade mark registration services to small business, we are pleased to announce our trade mark registration pricing for 2011. These prices are valid from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 or until further notice.

Trade mark registration per class = $660 (inc GST)

All quoted prices include:

• trade mark advice and recommendations
• preliminary trade mark searches
• lodging the trade mark application
• the trade mark application fee
• registering the trade mark
• the trade mark registration fee

Please note that all quoted prices do NOT include objections, extensions, oppositions, hearings and appeals. Company name searches, business name searches and other similar searches will incur additional charges. All trade mark services will be subject to a cost disclosure setting out the terms and conditions of our engagement in accordance with the Legal Profession Act.

Trade Mark Enquiry

For more information on our trade mark services and quotes on our professional fees, please complete the Quick Enquiry Form. One of our experienced trade mark lawyers will contact you to explore how we can improve your business and add to your balance sheet by realising your intellectual property through trade mark registration.

Ern Phang
Trade Mark Lawyer
enquiry[at]trademark-lawyer.com.au

This website is supported by Phang Legal, an incorporated legal practice based in Parramatta CBD providing professional legal services in trade mark advice, representation and trade mark registration to businesses across Sydney and Australia. Ern Phang is the solicitor director of Phang Legal. Ern Phang is not a trade mark attorney.

The trade mark registration process uses a classification system that divides registered trade marks into different ‘classes’. Each class represents a different type of goods or services (although there may be some overlap between classes). Currently, there are 34 classes of goods and 11 classes of services. The classes and the goods and services are listed in Schedule 1 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995.

In addition to the existing uniqueness of your trade mark, you can further distinguish or identify your trade mark from other trade marks by narrowing its use to a specific class or classes.  If you have a trade mark that is similar to another trade mark, decide whether your trade mark will confuse or possibly deceive the public. If the public could think that the trade marks are related or have the same owner, you need to review your trade mark or your intended classes for trade mark registration. Even if your trade mark is similar to another trade mark, you may still be able to register your trade mark if the other trade mark is registered in a different class to the class that you intend to register your trade mark.

A registered trade mark is a valuable asset and helps to protect a business’ brand and goodwill, however it will only be effective for its nominated class of goods or services. Deciding on the right class for registration is one of the most important steps in the trade mark registration process and therefore, before registering your trade mark you must either educate yourself with the trade mark registration regime or seek professional advice. Our trade mark registration services include advice regarding classes, and we assist you in this process by:

• Determining what are the suitable classes for your trade mark registration
• Determining whether there are any similar registered or unregistered trade marks
• Determining whether similar registered trade marks are in the same, similar or different classes to your intended classes
• Determining the risks and opportunities for registering your trade mark in the intended classes

A registered trade mark can allow you to stop competitors or other people from using your trade mark. A registered trade mark can also be defensive in nature, and may stop your competitors or others from challenging your trade mark. Even in small business, if you have a brand, logo, name, or even a tune that you use to market your goods or services and you consider it to be valuable to you, you should consider the benefits of protecting you trade mark through trade mark registration.

The trade mark registration process takes a minimum of 8 months. We can assist by simplifying the process for you and give you peace of mind when registering your trade mark.

A flowchart of the process appears below:

Download our flowchart: Trade Mark Process – Simple and Unopposed

A trade mark is a sign used on a good or service that distinguishes it from other goods and services. It can also be used to show that the good or service originates from or is associated with the owner or seller of the goods or services.

A trade mark can be a word, phrase, letter, number, sound, smell, shape, logo, picture, or a combination of any of these elements. The law considers trade marks to be a form of intellectual property and it should be treated as such.

Registration of Trade Marks

Trade marks can be registered with an Australian government agency (www.ipaustralia.gov.au), and a registered trade mark gives you the legal right to use, license, or sell it within Australia for the goods and services for which it is registered.

A trade mark does not necessarily need to be registered – some of the most well known trade marks are not registered purely on the basis that they are so recognisable and well-connected to the owner of the trade mark.

Accordingly, if you have an unregistered trade mark this does not stop you from bringing action against someone who has infringed on your trade mark – however if your trade mark is not very well known, this may make your case an expensive exercise.

Why register a Trade Mark?

A registered trade mark offers substantially increased protection than a common law trade mark. Proof of registration is good evidence towards ownership of the trade mark. A registered trade mark not only allows you to stop others from using your own trade mark, but also it protects others from challenging your trade mark.

As trade marks are considered proprietary, you should consider it to be an intangible asset that adds value to your business. It can be added to your asset base, and it can be sold, licensed, assigned, and even used as security.

Business, Company, or Domain Names

Registered business, company, or domain names are very important in establishing your identity or brand name, however they do not afford the same level of protection as a trade mark. In fact, a registered trade mark may prevail over any protection given by the registration of a business, company, or domain name.

If you have a brand, logo, name, or even a tune that you use to market your goods or services, you should consider the benefits of registering your trade mark.

The case revolves around the enhanced water market. The applicant, Nutrientwater produces a number of lightly flavoured water beverages enhanced with nutrients and vitamins. The respondent, Baco competes with Nutrientwater directly in the enhanced water market. The enhanced water market is a fairly new market in Australia, and there are a number of other similar products on the market including Coca Cola’s Vitaminwater range.

Nutrientwater sought various relief against Baco. The substance of its case is that there is a striking similarity between the appearances of Baco’s Grassroots water products and Nurientwater’s water products. Nutrientwater claimed that a number of features of its product distinguished the product, including the label design, the shape of its bottles, and even the colour of the product itself. To a certain extent, this is true – visit your local supermarket and have a look at the products in question.

However, on the basis of the evidence before the Court, it appeared that the features that Nutrientwater claimed were distinct features of their product also appeared in common usage across the market, in particular with Vitaminwater and Smart Water.

One curious aspect of this case, and one that Baco made submissions on, was that many of the features that Nutrientwater claimed were copied or were similar to Vitaminwater’s features. Vitaminwater was a leading brand in the United States but was a late entry into the Australian enhanced water market.

While Baco used a number of features which were common in the market, Baco’s product design was also intended to be distinctive. This was achieved through a clearly different branding direction, for example, having a different name and logo.

In summary, Nutrientwater failed to make out its claims because:

1. It failed to establish a relevant reputation in the features that Baco allegedly appropriated.
2. It failed to establish that by adopting features common in the market, Baco misrepresented, misled, or deceived purchasers into thinking that the products were associated with Nutriwater.
3. By branding and packaging, Baco clearly differentiated its products from its competitors.

What we can take away from this case is that a trader may be permitted to adopt the features of a competitor’s products, in situations where those features are commonly used in the market and not likely to deceive or mislead the ordinary, reasonable consumer into thinking that the products belong to the competition or are associated with the competition.

The other thing we can take away from the case is that you should always try to protect or enforce your intellectual property rights if they are infringed, especially if they are for something new or inventive. In this situation by copying the successful market leader the entire market had diluted whatever interesting or inventive marketing that was initially associated with the product – and now all products in that market are only differentiated by their names, branding, and logos.

The composers and EMI argued that Larrikin did not own copyright in the song. They argued that Ms Sinclair, the composer of “Kookaburra” had entered the song into a competition by the Girls Guides Association of Victoria. A condition of the competition was that all matter entered was to become the property of the Guide Association.

The question before the Court on this occasion was if the entry into the competition constituted assignment of copyright to the Girls Guides Association of Victoria under the 1912 Copyright Act.

The Federal Court held that:

1. on the basis of the evidence presented to the Court, there was no written assignment of copyright.
2. there was no intention to assign the copyright.
3. the entry form to the competition that identified “Kookaburra” as an entry did not constitute an assignment of copyright.

This case goes to remind us that assignment of copyright needs to be clear and in writing. The Copyright Act also states that assignment does not have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor.

The brand or goodwill of any successful business is an asset. It is valuable and it requires ongoing and secure legal protection. From 2010, we have been investing heavily to expand our trade mark practice area, from our existing large corporate and not for profit clients, to include small business and to provide these premium services at highly competitive rates.

New focus – Small business clients

You may be in small business, but previously avoided examining your intellectual property or protecting your brand through trade mark registration because of the cost and complexity. We are confident that you will find our approach to service delivery and low-cost pricing to be the perfect match and the opportunity that you have been waiting for. We understand the unique challenges of small businesses across a range of different industries, and we believe we can help you grow your business to where you want it to be and to achieve the things you want it to achieve.

We help you realise the true value of your brand and goodwill and build your business by:

• Reviewing your existing brand and marketing strategies
• Advising you on relevant intellectual property issues
• Outlining your rights and protections under common law and legislation, and
• Registering your trade marks in Australia and overseas.

We believe in plain language and practical advice, so that the options available to you and our recommendations are clear, simple and affordable.

The trade mark registration services are offered as part of an overall service offering in commercial law. We look after all legal aspects of your business and business operations, which may include trade mark protection, even though we are not trade mark attorneys. We are commercial lawyers providing assistance in trade mark registration.

Trade Mark Enquiry

For more information on our trade mark services and quotes on our professional fees, please complete the Quick Enquiry Form. One of our experienced trade mark lawyers will contact you to explore how we can improve your business and add to your balance sheet by realising your intellectual property through trade mark registration.

Ern Phang
Trade Mark Lawyer
enquiry[at]trademark-lawyer.com.au

This website is supported by Phang Legal, an incorporated legal practice based in Parramatta CBD providing professional legal services in trade mark advice, representation and trade mark registration to businesses across Sydney and Australia. Ern Phang is the solicitor director of Phang Legal. Ern Phang is not a trade mark attorney.