Elise Explains IPcast

Expanding your business internationally sounds like growth. But from a trade mark perspective, it’s often where things start to unravel. In this episode, recorded from London during the INTA Conference, Elise unpacks a common — and costly — issue: why so many businesses run into trade mark problems when they enter new markets. The key takeaway? Your brand might feel global… but legally, it isn’t. What This Episode Covers Why trade mark rights are territorial (and what that actually means in practice) The most common assumptions business owners make about owning a brand How international expansion exposes hidden IP risks Real-world scenarios where businesses lose control of their brand overseas Why filing a trade mark is not the same as having a strategy Key Risks When Expanding Overseas 1. Someone Already Owns Your Brand You may discover that your brand is already registered in another country — even if you’ve been using it for years in your home market. In many jurisdictions, priority is based on filing date, not use. 2. You Receive a Cease & Desist Launching into a new market without clearance can trigger enforcement action from existing rights holders. This can lead to: Forced rebranding Legal costs Delays to expansion 3. Your Brand Can’t Be Registered A name that works in one country may be: Descriptive in another language Too similar to an existing mark Restricted under local laws This leaves you exposed without enforceable rights. 4. You Filed — But Not Strategically Common issues include: Filing too late Filing in the wrong entity Incorrect or narrow specifications Over-reliance on the Madrid Protocol without local strategy Why This Matters Trade mark issues don’t stay “legal problems.” They quickly become commercial problems, affecting: Brand consistency Marketing and customer trust Distribution and partnerships Business valuation and investment readiness Practical Takeaways If you’re planning to expand internationally: ✔️ Think Ahead Consider future markets early — even if expansion is 12–24 months away. ✔️ Clear Before You Enter Undertake trade mark searches in your target country before launching. ✔️ Prioritise Key Markets Focus protection on where you: Sell Manufacture Plan to grow ✔️ Get Ownership Right Ensure the correct entity owns the IP — particularly across group structures. ✔️ Treat Trade Marks as a Business Asset This is not just a legal step — it’s part of your growth strategy. INTA Insight Attending the INTA Conference in London highlights a consistent global theme: Most trade mark disputes don’t arise because businesses act recklessly — they arise because businesses grow… without aligning their IP strategy to that growth. Key Concept: Territorial Rights Trade mark protection is granted country by country. There is no single “worldwide” trade mark. International systems like the Madrid Protocol can streamline filings — but they do not eliminate the need for jurisdiction-specific strategy. Next Steps If international expansion is on your horizon, now is the time to ask: Will your brand actually work in the markets you want to enter? Fixing issues early is strategic. Fixing them later is expensive. Work With Elise If you’d like tailored advice on protecting your brand as you scale, you can book a strategy call: 🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com Subscribe & Share If you found this episode helpful, share it with a business owner or advisor who is thinking about expanding internationally. Because the earlier this is understood, the easier it is to get right.

Who Really Owns Your Trade Mark? Lessons from Black Star Pastry v Richards Episode Summary You can build a strong brand, file a trade mark… and still not legally own it. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks the recent Federal Court decision in Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383 — and why it highlights one of the most critical (and commonly misunderstood) issues in trade mark law: Ownership at the time of filing With a particular focus on the “Blackstar Coffee” trade mark, this episode explores what happens when a mark is filed in the name of one individual, despite being used in a broader business involving multiple parties. The takeaway is simple — but often overlooked: It’s not enough to file a trade mark. It needs to be filed in the right name. What You’ll Learn Why trade mark ownership is determined at the time of filing What “true owner” actually means in practice Why filing in the wrong name can invalidate your trade mark The risks of founders registering trade marks personally How shared ventures and partnerships create ownership complications Why the “Blackstar Coffee” issue is a common real-world mistake How misaligned ownership can affect sale, licensing, and investment Key Case Insight: Black Star Coffee This case highlights a familiar scenario: A trade mark is filed by one of two business participants The brand is actually used in a shared business context No clear agreement exists around ownership The result? 👉 A disconnect between legal ownership (on the register) and commercial reality (how the brand operates) This creates uncertainty, risk, and potential disputes — particularly if relationships change. Why This Matters for Business Owners Getting trade mark ownership wrong can lead to: Invalid or vulnerable registrations Inability to enforce your rights Disputes between founders or partners Problems during due diligence or business sale Misalignment between your IP and your business structure In practical terms: Your business may not actually own its most valuable asset — its brand Practical Takeaways If you’re filing (or have filed) a trade mark, consider: 1. Who should own the trade mark? Is it a personal brand or a business asset? Will the business grow, take on investors, or be sold? In most cases, the company should own the trade mark. 2. Does ownership match how the brand is used? The entity that controls and commercialises the brand should typically be the registered owner. 3. Are multiple people involved? If yes: Don’t default to one name on the application Document ownership clearly before filing 4. Have you taken shortcuts? Quick or DIY filings often lead to ownership issues later. 5. Is your IP aligned with your broader structure? Trade marks should sit within your: Business structure Asset protection strategy Long-term exit planning Key Message If the wrong entity files the trade mark, you may never have had a valid registration to begin with. Need Help? If you’re unsure whether your trade marks are owned by the right entity — or you’re setting things up properly from the start — it’s worth getting clarity early. 👉 Book a strategy call: www.elisesteegstra.com Case Reference Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383 Share This Episode If you know a founder, creative, or advisor who’s building a brand — this is an important one to share. Because most trade mark issues don’t come from failing to file… They come from filing in the wrong name.

World IP Day Special: IP and Sports — Ready, Set, Innovate! Episode Summary What do the Olympics, Nike, athlete sponsorships, and sports technology all have in common? They’re powered by intellectual property. In this World IP Day special, we unpack this year’s theme — “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!” — and explore how sport provides one of the clearest real-world examples of how IP creates value, protects brands, and drives revenue. This episode breaks down how IP operates behind the scenes in sport — and, more importantly, what business owners can learn from it. Because whether you’re building a brand, launching a product, or scaling a business, the same principles apply.  What You’ll Learn Why sport is fundamentally a commercial IP ecosystem How trade marks, copyright, and patents operate in the sports industry The role of branding and emotional connection in driving value How athletes themselves function as IP assets What ambush marketing is — and why it matters The risks of not properly owning or controlling your IP Practical steps to better protect and leverage your business assets Key Insights 1. Sport is built on IP — not just performance Behind every team, event, and broadcast is a framework of trade marks, copyright, and licensing rights that make commercialisation possible. 2. Brand drives revenue Merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights only work because ownership is clear and enforceable. 3. Innovation creates new value From wearable tech to performance data, sport continues to generate IP that becomes new revenue streams. 4. Athletes are brands Names, images, and reputations are commercial assets that need to be carefully managed and protected. 5. Protection requires action Major sporting bodies actively enforce their rights — because unmanaged IP quickly loses value. Common Mistakes (Beyond Sport) Not registering trade marks early Holding IP in the wrong entity or individual name Failing to document ownership between founders or collaborators Allowing inconsistent brand use across marketing and partnerships Treating IP as a legal formality instead of a business asset Practical Takeaways Audit your IP: What do you actually own? Register key assets early: Especially your brand Clarify ownership: Between founders, entities, and contractors Control usage: Put clear agreements in place Think commercially: How could your IP generate revenue? Reality Check If your brand, product, or content disappeared tomorrow: Could you prove ownership? Could you stop someone else using it? Or would you be relying on assumptions?  Work With Me If you want to make sure your business is properly protected — or you’re scaling and need to get your structure and IP right — you can book a strategy call: 🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com About World IP Day World Intellectual Property Day is celebrated annually on 26 April and highlights the role IP plays in encouraging innovation and creativity. The 2026 theme: “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!” Share This Episode If you found this episode useful, share it with a business owner, founder, or advisor who is building something worth protecting.

Choosing a business name feels like a creative decision — but legally, it’s one of the most important strategic choices you’ll make. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack the most common trade mark mistakes startups make, and why getting this wrong early can lead to expensive rebrands, lost opportunities, and unnecessary legal risk. Through practical examples and real-world scenarios, you’ll learn how to protect your brand properly from day one — and avoid building a business around a name you don’t actually own. What You’ll Learn Why checking domain and social media availability is not enough The critical difference between a business name and a trade mark Why descriptive names are harder to protect (and what to choose instead) How registering your trade mark in the wrong entity can create problems later What trade mark “classes” are and why they matter for future growth Why timing is critical when filing a trade mark How inconsistent branding can weaken your legal position What to consider if you plan to expand internationally Key Takeaways ✔️ Your brand is a business asset, not just a marketing decision ✔️ Trade mark rights don’t come from registration of a business name ✔️ Distinctive names are easier to protect and scale ✔️ Filing early can prevent costly disputes or rebrands later ✔️ Your trade mark strategy should reflect where your business is going — not just where it is today ✔️ Consistency in how you use your brand matters more than most founders realise Real-World Scenario We walk through the example of a startup building a brand under a name that: Wasn’t properly searched Wasn’t registered early And wasn’t structured correctly …resulting in exposure to rebranding, legal risk, and growth limitations. It’s a situation I see regularly — and one that is almost always preventable. Practical Next Steps If you’re building or growing a business: Run a proper trade mark search before locking in your name Choose a name that is distinctive and brandable Register your trade mark early Ensure it’s owned by the correct entity File in the right classes, considering future expansion Use your brand consistently across platforms Consider your international strategy if growth is on the horizon Work With Me If you’d like clarity on whether your brand is actually protected — or want to get it right before you launch — you can book a strategy call: 🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com Subscribe & Share If you found this episode helpful: Share it with a founder or business owner Follow Elise Explains IP for practical, real-world IP insights Leave a review to help more people understand how to protect what they’re building

When you “buy” software, do you actually own it? In most cases, the answer is no. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we break down software licensing basics in plain English — what a licence really is, why it matters for your business, and the risks that often get overlooked. Because software isn’t just a tool — it’s infrastructure. And if you don’t understand your rights, you may not be in control of your own systems. What You’ll Learn The difference between owning software vs licensing it Why most businesses are only granted limited rights to use software The key types of software licences: SaaS (subscription-based platforms) Perpetual licences Open source software Custom-built software The hidden risks in developer arrangements (and who actually owns the IP) What happens when a licence is terminated The terms that matter most in any software agreement Key Risks to Be Aware Of Losing access to critical systems if a licence ends Being unable to extract or migrate your data Discovering you don’t own custom-built software Breaching open source licence terms without realising Getting locked into platforms with no exit strategy Real-World Insight Many businesses invest heavily in custom-built platforms — CRMs, booking systems, or internal tools — only to discover later that they don’t own the underlying IP. If the relationship with the developer breaks down, the business can be left without control over systems they rely on every day. Key Licence Terms to Check If you review nothing else, focus on: Scope of use – who can use the software and how Termination rights – what happens if the agreement ends Data ownership and access – can you export your data easily Transferability – can the licence move with your business Customisation rights – can you modify or adapt the software  Practical Steps for Business Owners Audit the software your business depends on Identify any single points of failure Review key licence terms (especially termination and data access) Ensure custom software agreements address IP ownership clearly Plan an exit strategy for critical platforms Why This Matters Software sits at the centre of most modern businesses — from customer data to financial systems. If you don’t control your access to those systems, you may not fully control your business. Work With Elise If you’d like help reviewing your software arrangements or ensuring your business is properly protected: Book a strategy call: https://www.elisesteegstra.com Share This Episode If you found this helpful, share it with a business owner or advisor — especially anyone investing in software or building custom systems.

Most business owners assume their website or app is “theirs.” But in reality, ownership of what you’ve built is often fragmented — spread across developers, designers, copywriters, and third-party platforms. In this episode, Elise breaks down how intellectual property actually works in websites and apps, where businesses commonly get caught out, and what to fix before it impacts growth, control, or a future sale. This is a practical guide to understanding what you own, what you’re licensing, and how to properly secure your digital assets. What We Cover Why your website or app is a bundle of different IP rights The common misconception that paying = owning Who typically owns: Code Design (UX/UI) Website copy and content Images, videos, and digital assets The difference between ownership vs licence (and why it matters) Risks that show up when: Changing developers Scaling or commercialising Raising investment Selling your business Hidden IP risks in: Shopify, Wix, and SaaS platforms Stock images and third-party assets Contractor-created content Key Takeaways Your website or app is not a single asset — it’s made up of multiple IP components with different ownership rules Paying a developer or designer does not automatically transfer ownership Without proper agreements, key parts of your platform may be owned by others IP gaps often surface during due diligence, disputes, or scaling Getting this right early is significantly easier than fixing it later Practical Steps for Business Owners If you have (or are building) a website or app: 1. Put proper agreements in place Ensure all developers, designers, and contractors sign agreements with clear IP assignment clauses. 2. Confirm ownership sits with your business entity Not you personally — your company should own the assets. 3. Understand what you’re licensing Platforms like Shopify or plugins are licensed, not owned — know the limits. 4. Keep records and access Maintain contracts, source files, and login credentials in one place. 5. Protect your brand Register trade marks where appropriate and ensure consistent use. A Common Scenario A business builds an app using external developers and creatives. A few years later, they: Seek investment, or Try to sell During due diligence, it becomes clear they don’t fully own: The code The design Parts of the content The result? Delays, renegotiation — or a lost deal. Why This Matters Your website or app is often a core business asset. If you don’t control the IP: You don’t fully control the business And that impacts value, scalability, and exit options Need Help? If you’re unsure whether your website or app IP is properly structured, now is the time to review it. Book a strategy call: www.elisesteegstra.com Subscribe & Share If this episode was helpful, share it with a business owner or founder building something online. And don’t forget to follow Elise Explains IP for practical, real-world guidance on protecting your business.

Episode Title: Why Cadbury Doesn’t Own the Colour Purple (And Why Colour Trade Marks Are So Hard) Episode Overview Can a business really “own” a colour? In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack Cadbury’s long-running attempts to protect its iconic purple packaging — and why those efforts have had mixed success in Australia and internationally. Using real cases, including the dispute with Darrell Lea and Cadbury’s failed UK registration, this episode explains why colour trade marks are some of the hardest rights to secure. What We Cover Cadbury’s use of purple Cadbury has used its distinctive purple (Pantone 2685C) for over a century, investing heavily in building brand recognition through colour alone. The Australian dispute with Darrell Lea Cadbury challenged Darrell Lea’s use of purple packaging, arguing it caused consumer confusion and leveraged Cadbury’s reputation. The UK trade mark attempt Cadbury’s application to register the colour purple failed due to lack of precision in how the colour was defined. Why colour trade marks are difficult We explore the legal and commercial hurdles, including exclusivity, consumer perception, and evidentiary burden. Key Case References Australia Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 70 Full Federal Court decision Confirmed that Cadbury did not have exclusive rights to the colour purple for chocolate packaging Emphasised that colour alone was insufficient to establish distinctiveness in this context United Kingdom / Europe Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174 Court of Appeal decision Rejected Cadbury’s colour trade mark application due to lack of clarity (“predominant colour” issue) Cadbury UK Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] EWHC 16 (Ch) Further confirmation that the application lacked the precision required for registration Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Limited [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch). Meade J decided in Cadbury's favour on two counts, allowing the registration of two of its applications for colour. The third application was refused. Key Takeaways Colour can be a powerful branding tool — but it is rarely enough on its own Trade mark law is cautious about granting monopolies over colours Evidence of long-term use is necessary, but not always sufficient Precision in drafting trade mark applications is critical Strong brands rely on multiple identifiers, not just one visual element Why This Matters for Business Owners Many businesses assume that consistent use of colours, packaging, or design elements automatically creates legal ownership. The Cadbury example shows that: Recognition ≠ legal protection Brand strategy must be supported by legal strategy Early planning can avoid costly disputes later Further Resources If you’d like help protecting your brand or understanding what elements of your business can actually be registered as trade marks, you can learn more here: 👉 www.elisesteegstra.com About the Podcast Elise Explains IP is a podcast for business owners, founders, and advisors who want to understand how intellectual property actually works in practice — and how to protect what they’re building before problems arise.

Episode: Social Media IP Risks for Brands Social media has become one of the most powerful tools for building a brand. But it also introduces a range of intellectual property risks that many businesses overlook. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise discusses the most common IP and brand protection risks businesses face on social media — particularly when marketing teams, agencies, influencers and customers are all using the brand in different ways. From inconsistent use of trade marks to influencer behaviour that can damage brand reputation, this episode explores how quickly brand control can be lost online — and what businesses can do to manage those risks. Whether you're a business owner, marketer, or advisor, understanding these issues can help ensure your brand remains legally strong and commercially valuable as it grows online. In This Episode Elise explains: Why social media creates unique intellectual property risks for brands How inconsistent use of brand names and logos can weaken trade mark protection The risks associated with influencers using brand assets incorrectly How influencer behaviour can impact brand reputation Why user-generated content can create copyright issues How hashtags and social media trends can unintentionally reshape a brand Practical steps businesses can take to protect their IP online Key Topics Discussed 1. Inconsistent Brand Use on Social Media When marketing teams, agencies, and influencers all use the brand differently — abbreviations, altered logos, or modified taglines — it can weaken trade mark protection and create confusion about the brand itself. 2. Influencer Use of Brand Assets Influencers often create their own visual content, which can result in: altered logos modified brand colours cropped or stylised trade marks branding combined with other products Without clear guidelines, this can dilute the brand or create legal issues. 3. Influencer Behaviour Risks Influencers effectively act as public ambassadors for the brand. Controversial or inappropriate behaviour can quickly create reputational damage for the business associated with them. 4. Loss of Control Over Brand Content Once content is posted online, it can easily be: shared copied modified repurposed Businesses may lose control over how their IP appears across social platforms. 5. User-Generated Content Customer photos, videos and reviews are valuable marketing tools — but reposting them can raise copyright and permission issues if the business does not have clear rights to reuse that content. 6. Hashtags and Brand Identity Campaign hashtags can sometimes become more widely used than the trade mark itself, creating confusion about the brand and potentially weakening trade mark protection. Practical Steps for Businesses To reduce social media IP risks, businesses should consider: Creating clear social media brand guidelines Including IP and brand use terms in influencer agreements Monitoring online use of brand names, logos and hashtags Obtaining permission before reusing user-generated content Maintaining consistent use of registered trade marks Protecting a brand online requires ongoing management, not just registration of trade marks. Learn More For more insights on protecting your intellectual property and building legally strong brands, visit: https://www.elisesteegstra.com About the Podcast Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property issues in a clear and practical way for business owners, founders, advisors and professionals. Each episode focuses on real-world brand, trade mark and IP issues that affect growing businesses — and how to manage them strategically.

The Katy Perry Trade Mark Case: What the High Court Actually Decided Episode: Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 Episode Overview In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack the High Court of Australia’s long-awaited decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 — widely known as the Katy Perry trade mark case. The dispute involved an Australian fashion designer who registered the trade mark “Katie Perry” for clothing, and the global pop star Katy Perry, whose companies sold merchandise under the same name. After years of litigation and conflicting outcomes in the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court, the High Court has now clarified how trade mark reputation and priority dates interact under Australian law. The key takeaway: trade mark rights are assessed based on the position at the priority date — not with hindsight after someone becomes famous. This decision reinforces the importance of early trade mark filings, evidence of reputation, and careful brand strategy. What You’ll Learn In this episode we discuss: The background to the Katy Perry trade mark dispute Why the Australian designer registered “Katie Perry” as a clothing trade mark How Katy Perry’s companies challenged the validity of that trade mark Why the Full Federal Court cancelled the registration How the High Court reversed that decision Why the 2008 priority date became the central issue in the case What businesses should learn about trade mark timing and reputation Key Legal Issues Explained 1. Priority Dates in Trade Mark Law The High Court emphasised that the validity of a trade mark must be assessed at the time the application is filed. In this case, that meant asking whether Katy Perry had sufficient reputation in Australia in September 2008 to make the “Katie Perry” clothing mark deceptive or confusing. The Court held that the respondents did not prove that level of reputation at that time. 2. Reputation as a Ground for Cancelling a Trade Mark Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), a trade mark can be cancelled if its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion because of an earlier reputation. However, reputation must be proven with clear evidence at the relevant date. Later fame cannot be used to retrospectively invalidate a trade mark. 3. Why the High Court Allowed the Appeal The High Court found that the Full Federal Court had incorrectly concluded that the trade mark should be cancelled. Instead, the evidence did not establish that the singer’s reputation in Australia at the relevant time was strong enough to invalidate the registration. As a result, the High Court allowed Taylor’s appeal and restored the validity of the “Katie Perry” trade mark. Practical Takeaways for Businesses Although this case involved a global celebrity, the lessons apply to any business building a brand. 1. File trade marks early The earlier you file, the earlier your priority date is locked in — and that can be critical in disputes. 2. Reputation must be proven If you want to challenge a trade mark based on reputation, you need clear evidence of that reputation at the relevant time. 3. Courts won’t apply hindsight Later success or fame doesn’t change the legal position that existed when a trade mark was filed. 4. Brand strategy is risk management Choosing a name isn’t just a creative decision — it’s also a legal and strategic one. Case Details Case: Taylor v Killer Queen LLC Citation: [2026] HCA 5 Court: High Court of Australia Decision Date: 11 March 2026 Key legislation discussed: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Section 60 – Reputation as a ground for opposing registration Section 88 – Rectification of the trade mark register Links and Resources High Court decision: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2026/5.html High Court judgment summary: www.elisesteegstra.com  About Elise Explains IP Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property law into clear, practical insights for: business owners founders and entrepreneurs financial advisors and professional advisers brand owners and creators The focus is on helping businesses understand risk, protect their brands, and build valuable intellectual property assets. Subscribe Follow Elise Explains IP on your favourite podcast platform and share the episode with someone building a brand or launching a business.

Protecting Slogans & Taglines: When Words Become Trade Marks Many of the world’s most memorable brands are built around short phrases. Think “Just Do It”, “Because You’re Worth It”, or “I’m Lovin’ It.” But can businesses actually protect slogans and taglines as trade marks? In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks how trade mark law treats slogans, why many applications fail, and what businesses should consider before investing heavily in a tagline. While slogans can become powerful brand assets, they are not automatically registrable. The key issue is whether the phrase functions as a distinctive brand identifier, rather than just advertising language. In This Episode We explore: Why slogans can become valuable intellectual property The legal test for distinctiveness under trade mark law Why many marketing phrases fail to qualify for protection The difference between advertising copy and trade mark use Examples of well-known slogans that function as trade marks Practical considerations for businesses developing taglines Key Takeaways Not all slogans can be protected. Trade mark law generally prevents businesses from monopolising common promotional language. Distinctiveness is critical. A slogan must identify the source of goods or services, not simply describe them. Descriptive phrases are difficult to register. Taglines such as “Best Quality” or “Simply Delicious” are usually considered marketing language rather than trade marks. Consistent use can build protection over time. If consumers come to associate a slogan with a particular business, it may acquire distinctiveness through use. Strategic branding helps. Businesses that create distinctive, memorable slogans from the outset often have a much easier path to trade mark protection. Examples Discussed Examples of slogans that function as trade marks include: Nike – “Just Do It” L’Oréal – “Because You’re Worth It” McDonald’s – “I’m Lovin’ It” Red Bull – “Red Bull Gives You Wings” These phrases work because they are memorable, distinctive, and strongly associated with a single brand. Why This Matters for Businesses A slogan can become one of the most recognisable elements of a brand. But if it isn’t capable of trade mark protection, competitors may be able to use similar phrases. Understanding how trade mark law treats slogans helps businesses: Invest in branding that can actually be protected Avoid adopting phrases that are too descriptive Build long-term brand value through distinctive messaging Related Resources IP Australia – Trade Marks Overview https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) https://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en/ My website https://elisesteegstra.com  About the Podcast Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property in practical, plain-English terms for business owners, professionals, and advisors. Each episode explores how IP works in the real world — and how businesses can use it strategically to protect brand value.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we explore how packaging shapes and colours can function as trade marks under Australian law. We break down the legal test for non-traditional marks, why distinctiveness matters, how functionality can undermine protection, and what evidence you need if you’re building these kinds of brand assets. We also unpack a major recent dispute over the Moccona coffee jar and what it tells business owners about enforcing shape trade marks in practice. Key Topics Covered 1. What Counts as a Trade Mark? A “sign” under Australian trade mark law can include words, shapes, colours and packaging, so long as it can function as a badge of origin — meaning consumers recognise it as identifying one trader’s goods or services over others. 2. Packaging and Shape Trade Marks A shape or container can be registered as a trade mark if it’s distinctive and non-functional. Functional features (e.g. those that improve handling, storage or manufacture) generally cannot be monopolised under trade mark law. 3. Moccona Coffee Jar Case (Australia) Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1277 Moccona’s glass instant coffee jar shape was registered as a trade mark (Class 30 for coffee and instant coffee). The Federal Court dismissed Moccona’s claim that Cantarella’s (Vittoria) similar jar infringed the shape mark, finding that use of that jar shape in advertisements did not amount to use as a trade mark and that key factors pointed away from consumer confusion. The court also rejected Cantarella’s cross-claim to cancel the mark, holding that Moccona’s extensive use of the shape before the priority date had given it acquired distinctiveness under the Trade Marks Act. Why this matters for business owners: Registration is only part of the battle — enforcement hinges on how the packaging is actually perceived in the market, not just how it’s registered. 4. Colour Trade Marks – Can a Colour Alone Be Protected? Colour can be registered if it functions as a trade mark and distinguishes your goods/services. A classic international example is Tiffany & Co’s Tiffany Blue (registered in the U.S. for jewellery and packaging), showing how colour can serve as a badge of origin when strongly associated with a brand. 5. The Cadbury Purple Example The disputes over Cadbury’s attempt to register a specific shade of purple illustrate key principles for colour marks: Colour must be precisely defined and shown to function as brand identifier, not mere decoration. Key Legal Concepts ✔ Distinctiveness A mark — whether shape or colour — must be recognised by consumers as identifying the source of goods or services. ✔ Functionality If a shape is dictated by technical or functional necessity, registration is unlikely. Trade marks protect brand signals, not engineering features. ✔ Use in Trade Registration gains force only when the mark is actually used in the marketplace in ways that signal origin. Cases & Resources Here are links and references to the legal decisions and authoritative sources we discussed: Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1277 – Moccona coffee jar shape trade mark dispute (Federal Court of Australia) AustLii Case Decision Australian Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – Defines eligible trade marks, including non-traditional marks (shapes, colours, packaging). (See also IP Australia guidance on colour trade marks) Trade Marks Act Practical Takeaways Shape and colour can be trade marks, but they must do real work in the marketplace as badges of origin. Evidence matters: Consistent use over time builds distinctiveness. Registration ≠ enforcement: Winning in court often hinges on how consumers actually perceive and use the brand elements in everyday purchasing decisions. Resources for Further Learning IP Australia manuals and guidelines on trade mark registrability Case summaries from IP practice firms Trade mark search and monitoring tools Book a strategy call with me: www.elisesteegstra.com

How Burger King Lost Its Name in Australia — Trade Mark Lessons for Growing Businesses What happens when a global brand expands into a new country… and discovers it doesn’t legally own its own name there? In this episode, Elise breaks down the famous Australian branding anomaly behind Burger King and Hungry Jack's, and explains why this story is more than just business trivia — it’s a powerful lesson in trade mark strategy. If you’re planning to grow your brand beyond your current market, this is essential listening. What You’ll Learn Why trade marks are territorial and don’t automatically travel with your business How filing timing can determine who legally owns a brand name The real commercial costs of rebranding in a new market Why trade mark planning should happen before expansion, not after How this case still affects branding in Australia today The Story in Brief When Burger King attempted to enter Australia in the 1970s, it discovered the name was already registered locally. Rather than abandon the expansion, franchise partner Jack Cowin launched the business under an alternative name: Hungry Jack’s. Same burgers. Same business model. Different legal identity. Decades later, Australians still don’t visit Burger King — they visit Hungry Jack’s. Why This Matters for Business Owners This case illustrates three core trade mark realities: 1. Your brand only exists legally where it’s protected Registration in one country doesn’t create rights elsewhere. 2. Delay can cost you your name In many jurisdictions, whoever files first usually wins. 3. Rebranding is expensive and disruptive Changing names affects marketing, recognition, customer trust, and growth momentum. Practical Takeaways Before expanding internationally: Identify target markets early Conduct proper clearance searches File trade marks proactively Align filings with your expansion timeline Trade marks aren’t just defensive tools — they’re infrastructure for growth. About Elise Explains IP A practical podcast helping business owners understand intellectual property in plain English — with real-world examples, legal insights, and strategies you can actually use.

International Trade Marks & When You Need Them Trade marks don’t travel. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise breaks down the practical realities of international trade mark protection — when you need it, how to approach it, and what can go wrong if you delay. From manufacturing risks to eCommerce expansion, this episode explains why global business requires a global brand strategy. Key Topics Covered Why trade marks are territorial Registering with IP Australia protects you in Australia only — not overseas. Every country has its own system and its own register. Manufacturing risks in first-to-file jurisdictions Countries like China operate on a strict first-to-file basis, meaning suppliers, distributors, or trade mark squatters can register your brand before you do — potentially blocking exports or forcing you to buy your own brand back. Real-world disputes Luxury brand Jimmy Choo faced lengthy litigation in China after a third party registered a Chinese version of its name. Australian wine icon Penfolds has also encountered ongoing disputes involving similar marks and branding in the Chinese market. These cases illustrate a key lesson: reputation does not equal ownership. Expansion risks Entering a new market where someone else owns your mark can result in: Marketplace takedowns Customs blocks Licensing demands Rebranding costs The eCommerce trap Global shipping, international pricing, and cross-border marketing can amount to overseas trade mark use — even for small online stores. Two international filing pathways explained • Convention applications — separate filings in each country within 6 months of your Australian filing, offering independence and flexibility. • Madrid Protocol applications through the World Intellectual Property Organization — streamlined international filing with central management, but exposure to “central attack” risk during the first five years. When You Probably Need International Trade Marks You should be considering overseas protection if: You manufacture offshore You plan to expand internationally within 12 months You operate borderless eCommerce Investors are reviewing your IP position Your brand is central to business value Key Takeaway International trade marks aren’t about prestige — they’re about risk management. Filing early in key jurisdictions can protect: Your supply chain Your market access Your brand value Your scalability Because reclaiming a brand once someone else owns it overseas is far more expensive than protecting it early. Disclaimer This podcast provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Book a strategy call with me via my website: elisesteegstra.com.

Choosing a business name is exciting. Choosing a protectable business name? That’s strategic. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we break down what actually makes a trade mark strong — and why most trade mark issues start at the naming stage, not at registration. If you're launching a new business, rebranding, or advising clients on brand strategy, this episode walks through the practical legal considerations that can save time, money, and stress down the track. What We Cover 1. Not All Trade Marks Are Equal Trade marks sit on a spectrum — from highly distinctive (and easy to protect) to generic (and impossible to register). The strength of your trade mark affects: How easy it is to register How broad your protection will be How enforceable it is The long-term value of your brand 2. The Trade Mark Strength Spectrum We walk through the hierarchy of trade marks, from strongest to weakest: Fanciful / Invented Marks Completely made-up words (e.g. Kodak, Xerox). ✔ Strongest protection ✔ Easier registration ✖ Require marketing investment to build meaning Arbitrary Marks Real words used in an unrelated context (e.g. Apple for computers). ✔ Highly distinctive ✔ Excellent legal position Suggestive Marks Hint at what you do without directly describing it (e.g. Netflix). ✔ Registrable ✖ Sometimes face closer examination Descriptive Marks Directly describe goods or services (e.g. “Fast Tax Returns”). ✖ Difficult to register ✖ Narrow protection Generic Terms The name of the product or service itself (e.g. “Coffee Shop”). ✖ No protection available Common Mistakes We See Choosing a name that “sounds safe” but is legally weak Falling in love with a brand before conducting searches Designing logos and buying domains before checking availability Assuming registration automatically guarantees broad protection Practical Checklist: Choosing a Strong Trade Mark When naming your business, aim to: Choose invented, arbitrary, or suggestive names Avoid directly describing your goods or services Be cautious with geographic terms Think about future expansion Conduct clearance searches early Get advice before committing to brand rollout Key Takeaway If your name immediately tells people exactly what you do, it may be great for marketing — but weak for trade mark protection. Distinctiveness drives registrability. The strongest trade marks often feel slightly abstract at first — but that’s precisely what gives them power. Who This Episode Is For Start-ups choosing a business name Established businesses considering a rebrand Accountants, lawyers, and advisors guiding clients Marketing professionals collaborating with legal teams

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we dig deeper into the long-running ORO trade mark saga — this time through the lens of the Federal Court case Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1258. Rather than overturn the earlier High Court decision, this judgment demonstrates another way the enforceability of a foreign-word trade mark can be defeated. 🔎 Key Issues Explored 1. Background of the Dispute Cantarella Bros owns two registered trade marks for the Italian word ORO for coffee products. It sued Lavazza Australia, alleging that Lavazza’s use of ORO on packaging and advertising infringed those rights. 2. Was Lavazza Using ORO as a Trade Mark? Justice Yates confirmed that Lavazza was using ORO as a trade mark — despite arguments that it was only descriptive — because of how the word appeared and operated on the packaging. The Court reiterated that even descriptive elements can function as trade marks depending on use and presentation. 3. The High Court’s Earlier Ruling In 2014, the High Court confirmed ORO was inherently adapted to distinguish in Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (the 2014 High Court decision), meaning the mark was not merely descriptive. You can read the full High Court judgment here: Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 48 — https://www.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2014/HCA/48. 4. Ownership and First Use Are Fatal The turning point in the Federal Court case was the cross-claim on ownership. Lavazza introduced evidence that an Italian company, Caffè Molinari SpA, had used ORO as a trade mark in Australia before Cantarella’s first use, undermining Cantarella’s claim to be the first user and owner of the mark. Justice Yates found that Molinari had not abandoned its earlier use, and therefore Cantarella was not the true owner of the ORO trade marks. 5. Invalidity and Cancellation Because Cantarella was not the first user, the Court held its registered ORO marks were invalid and should be cancelled. Although Lavazza arguably infringed the marks on the facts, that finding could not stand because the registrations themselves were defective. 6. Broader Legal Themes This case highlights two critical trade mark risks: Ownership matters as much as distinctiveness — valid registration doesn’t guarantee enforceability if first use is challenged. Unregistered use can be decisive — evidence of earlier use by others may invalidate a registered mark. 🧠 What This Means for Your Brand Trade mark enforcement isn’t just about distinctiveness — ownership and priority can make or break a case. Comprehensive due-diligence and historical use research are essential before you register and before you litigate. Keeping systematic records of use from first commercial use strengthens your rights and helps preserve enforceability years later. 🔗 Relevant Cases Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 48 High Court decision confirming the inherent distinctiveness of ORO and Cinque Stelle in Australia. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2014/HCA/48 Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1258 Federal Court decision finding Cantarella’s ORO registrations invalid due to prior use by Molinari.

Show Notes: Getty Images v Stability AI – What This Landmark AI Case Means Episode Title: Getty Images v Stability AI – What This Landmark AI Case Means (and Why Australia Should Be Paying Attention) Judgment Link: Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (High Court of Justice, England and Wales, 4 November 2025) – https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf Case Background In January 2023, Getty Images sued Stability AI in the UK High Court over alleged copyright and trade mark infringement by Stability’s image-generation model, Stable Diffusion. Getty claimed the AI was trained on millions of Getty’s licensed images without permission and could produce outputs reproducing Getty’s watermarks or marks. Key Legal Claims Primary Copyright Infringement (Training & Development) Getty initially argued that training the model on Getty’s images without licence violated its rights. However, Getty withdrew this claim at trial when it could not show the training occurred in the UK. The UK Court therefore did not decide whether training on copyrighted works, per se, is infringing. Secondary Copyright Infringement Getty next asserted that the Stable Diffusion model itself was an “infringing copy” because it embodied copyrighted works and that offering the model in the UK constituted importation of infringing articles. The Court rejected this: model weights are not “copies” of works and the model does not store or reproduce Getty’s images in a way that makes it infringing. Trade Mark Infringement The Court found limited and historical trade mark infringement where some early model outputs included recognisable Getty or iStock watermarks. However, filtering and model improvements reduced such risks, and the finding was narrow in scope. Passing Off and Other Claims Passing off was not substantively addressed in light of the trade mark ruling. Other claims were withdrawn or unsuccessful. Why the Decision Matters Copyright Implications: The Court confirmed that model parameters are not a “copy” of training content under UK law, an important signal for developers. The judgment does not resolve the global question of whether training on copyrighted material without permission is infringement in a jurisdiction where the training occurs. Trade Mark Implications: Outputs that reproduce watermarks or marks under commercial conditions can trigger trade mark liability. Monitoring and filtering model outputs is therefore key. Relevance to Australia Although this is a UK judgment, many principles will be of interest in New South Wales, Victoria, and federal Australian practice: Territoriality: Australian copyright, like UK law, operates on territorial principles. Activities outside Australia may not attract infringement claims locally. Model Weights & Copies: Australian courts have not yet ruled on whether AI model weights constitute copying; the UK approach may be influential but not binding. Trade Marks & Outputs: Australian trade mark law will also apply to outputs that can cause confusion in the marketplace; watermark issues remain relevant. Contractual Protection: Clear licences and contractual controls over datasets remain crucial for rights-holders. Developer Practices: Documentation, filtering regimes, and auditable data provenance help manage risk. Practical Tips for Listeners For Rights-Holders: Track where models are trained and deployed. Watermark or brand-protect where possible. Use clear terms in licences and contracts. For AI Developers: Maintain robust filtering and monitoring for generated outputs. Document training sources and locations carefully. Understand jurisdictional exposure, especially where services are offered globally. Further Reading & Resources Full Judgment: Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd – November 4, 2025 (UK High Court) – https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf

Aldi, Dupes and IP Law: When “Inspired By” Goes Too Far Episode summary Aldi is no stranger to headlines for its lookalike products — often called “dupes”. But when does copying cross the legal line from legitimate competition into intellectual property infringement? In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks the legal risks behind dupe culture and explains how courts in Australia and the UK are responding. Using two recent and high-profile decisions — Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd in Australia and the Thatchers v Aldi case in the UK — Elise explores how copyright and trade mark law can be used to protect brand owners against copycat packaging. This episode is essential listening for brand owners, founders, marketers, and anyone developing or launching consumer products. What we cover What a “dupe” actually is — and why they are legally controversial Aldi’s long-running strategy of lookalike products Why Australian courts often reject trade mark confusion arguments How copyright in packaging design can succeed where trade marks fail The Federal Court’s findings in Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452 What “substantial part” means in copyright infringement Why Aldi was ordered to pay additional damages The UK decision in Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd How “unfair advantage” works in trade mark law — even without confusion Practical IP lessons for businesses navigating competitive markets Key takeaways You do not need identical branding for infringement — overall impression matters Copyright can be a powerful and under-used weapon against copycat packaging Intent and internal design instructions can be critical evidence Trade mark law increasingly focuses on unfair advantage, not just consumer confusion A layered IP strategy is essential for brands vulnerable to imitation Cases discussed Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452 Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd (UK Court of Appeal) Who should listen Brand owners and founders FMCG and retail businesses Marketing and product teams Designers and creative agencies In-house counsel and legal advisors Anyone curious about how far “inspiration” can legally go About the podcast Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property law into practical, real-world insights for business owners and professionals. No jargon. No fluff. Just clear explanations of how IP law works — and how to use it.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise breaks down how foreign words are treated under Australian trade mark law, and whether they can be considered descriptive — potentially undermining distinctiveness. We walk through the legal framework, practical examples, and what brand owners need to know when choosing and protecting trade marks that use words from another language. Key Discussion Points Trade mark distinctiveness in Australia: All marks — including foreign words — must be capable of distinguishing your goods or services from others. Ordinary Australian consumer test: A foreign word may be treated as descriptive if Australian consumers — or a relevant segment of the public — understand its meaning and see it as referring to the goods or services. When foreign words may still qualify: Words that are obscure, not widely understood, or arbitrary in context can be registrable. Brand strategy implications: Descriptive marks are hard to enforce and protect — early clearance and strategy are critical. Featured Case Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48 This High Court of Australia case considered whether the Italian words “ORO” (meaning “gold”) and “CINQUE STELLE” (“five stars”) were inherently adapted to distinguish coffee products under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Cantarella succeeded on appeal, with the High Court holding that the marks were sufficiently distinctive and not directly descriptive for the relevant Australian audience.  Full judgment: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_s67-2014  Why It Matters If a foreign word is understood in Australia as simply describing a quality or characteristic of goods and services, it may be considered descriptive — which can lead to refusal of registration or vulnerability to cancellation. This episode helps you navigate these issues with examples, legal context, and strategic insights. Resources Mentioned Trade mark clearance & strategy guidance IP Audit Tool (link available via the show page)

Episode Summary In this episode of Elise Explains IP, host Elise Steegstra breaks down a core concept in trade mark law: distinctiveness. Understanding whether a trade mark is distinctive — and at what level — can mean the difference between strong legal protection and a trade mark that’s vulnerable or unregistrable. Elise explains: What distinctiveness means in trade mark law The spectrum of distinctiveness, from weak (descriptive) to strong (invented) marks Why descriptive marks are problematic and how they differ from suggestive, arbitrary, or invented marks The limits of logo protection when the underlying name is weak Practical guidance on building distinctive brands that are legally protectable The episode also includes a real-world case study: The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 203, which illustrates how the court assessed distinctiveness — and why reputation alone was not enough to secure exclusive rights. Case Reference Read the full case: The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 203 https://jade.io/article/1058589 Key Takeaways A trade mark must be distinctive to perform its legal role as a badge of origin. Descriptive marks are the weakest and often cannot be registered unless substantial evidence shows they have acquired distinctiveness. Suggestive, arbitrary, and invented marks are stronger and generally more protectable. A logo does not automatically fix a weak name; word marks usually carry the most value. Assess distinctiveness in context: the specific goods/services and how ordinary consumers perceive the mark. The The Agency case demonstrates that even well-known brands can fail to secure exclusive rights where descriptive terms are central to the name. Resources & Tools Brand Clearance and IP Strategy Support If you’re planning a new brand, contemplating a rebrand, or unsure about your trade marks strength, we can help. Book a trade mark clearance or strategy call through our website. IP Audit Tool Kick off the new year by evaluating your intellectual property landscape with our downloadable audit tool. Identify gaps, risks, and opportunities across trade marks, copyright, domains, and more. Visit: https://elisesteegstra.com Connect with Elise Website: https://elisesteegstra.com Instagram: @elisesteegstra LinkedIn: linkedin/elisesteegstra Email: [email protected]

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise breaks down one of Australia’s most iconic branding disputes: the long-running legal battle between Kraft and Bega over the famous yellow peanut butter jar. We explore how something as simple as packaging colour can become the centre of a multi-million-dollar IP dispute — and what the case teaches every business about trade marks, goodwill, restructures, and product claims. Whether you’re building a brand, buying or selling a business, or thinking about internal IP structuring, this episode is packed with practical insights to help you avoid sticky legal situations. What We Cover ✨ The backstory How the Kraft peanut butter business was sold to Bega Why the yellow jar became the centre of the dispute How both companies tried to claim ownership of the same trade dress ⚖️ The Court’s key findings Goodwill is a real asset — and can be sold Each business line can have its own goodwill Unregistered trade marks (including packaging/get-up) are part of that goodwill You can’t transfer an unregistered trade mark without transferring the underlying business Why Bega won both at trial and on appeal 📦 The packaging claim twist Why Kraft’s label “Loved since 1935” was ruled misleading The change they were forced to make 💡 Practical takeaways for business owners Register your trade marks early — including trade dress Identify all IP assets in business sale agreements Avoid common mistakes when setting up IP holding companies Make sure all packaging claims are accurate and compliant with ACL Resources & Links ACCC guidance on misleading claims: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims  IP Australia Trade Mark Search: https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/quick  Previous episodes on trade mark basics and brand protection Connect with Elise LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elisesteegstra/  Website: www.elisesteegstra.com 

Beyond NDAs: Proactive Protection Strategies | Elise Explains IP In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise Steegstra breaks down what it really takes to protect your confidential information and IP assets — far beyond relying on a standard NDA. Many businesses assume an NDA alone will protect their secrets. In practice, courts expect more. Elise explores the legal, technical, and operational steps that actually make your confidentiality obligations enforceable and your commercial advantage defensible. Whether you're a founder, CTO, product lead, investor, or in-house counsel, this episode provides essential guidance on how to strengthen your IP protection strategy from multiple angles. What We Cover • Why NDAs often fail — and how to make them enforceable Learn the key elements courts look for, and how to draft clarity, reasonableness, and real remedies into your agreements. • Layered security protocols (digital + physical) Understand the technical and physical controls that demonstrate you take confidentiality seriously — from access controls to secure destruction to ex-staff offboarding. • Building a culture of confidentiality How onboarding, training, and everyday habits reduce the risk of internal leaks and strengthen your internal IP discipline. • Open-source software risks Why OSS can compromise commercialisation if unmanaged, and how to implement practical controls around licensing, provenance, and software supply chain risk. Who Should Listen This episode is ideal for: Start-up founders and early-stage teams CTOs, engineering managers, and developers Investors conducting due diligence In-house counsel and legal teams Anyone handling sensitive IP, trade secrets, or proprietary information Key Takeaways NDAs are the starting point, not the whole strategy. Courts expect you to take reasonable and demonstrable steps to protect your own information. Security must be layered across digital and physical environments. A culture of confidentiality is just as important as legal documents. Open-source software requires governance, not guesswork. Resources & Links If you need assistance reviewing your agreements, implementing an IP strategy, or auditing your confidentiality protocols, contact Elise:  www.elisesteegstra.com

Trade Mark Basics: What Every Business Needs to Know | Elise Explains IP If you’re building a brand in Australia, understanding trade marks is essential. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise Steegstra (lawyer & trade marks attorney) breaks down the fundamentals: what a trade mark is, why you need one, and how the registration process actually works. Whether you’re a founder, creator, small business owner, or marketer, this is your practical crash course in protecting your brand and avoiding costly mistakes. ⭐ What You’ll Learn in This Episode: What you can and can’t register as a trade mark The difference between a business name, domain name & trade mark Why trade marks matter for brand protection and business value How registration works in Australia (step-by-step) Common mistakes (and how to avoid them) International protection: when to think beyond Australia When to register your trade mark How to enforce your rights once registered 🎁 FREE DOWNLOAD – IP Audit Tool Want to check if your business has hidden IP risks? Download my free IP Audit Tool here: 👉 https://www.elisesteegstra.com 🔗 More Resources Explore articles, guides, and templates for founders & creatives: 👉 https://www.elisesteegstra.com 💬 Say Hello If you enjoyed this video, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and comment with your questions. I’d love to feature your question in a future episode!

Think you know intellectual property? In this episode, here’s what every Aussie creator, founder, and business owner actually needs to know about protecting their ideas.