Intellectual Property Law

Protecting brands in the modern era

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–4 minutes

Launching a new brand is a difficult job, regardless of whether you are at the coal face designing the actual logo or attempting to please various stakeholders including an omnipresent board of directors.  Regardless of your taste and preferences for the look and feel of the artwork, there are various things that should be considered in the new millennium to protect all that hard work.

Brands are now global

Like it or not, a brand is now global.  Whether you are a local dry cleaner or a national transport company, it’s likely that your brand will been seen internationally via the organisation’s website.  This creates a complex interplay of national and international obligations, as far as competing intellectual property rights are concerned.  For those of us that have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to create a brand from its inception, you’ll know how hard it is just to get a domain name, let alone all the permutations!

Searches

At its most basic, is the need to ensure that your desired name is available.  This may involve:

  • a search of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) name search database to see if there are similar company or business names;
  • a search of IP Australia’s database to see if there are any registered trademarks that are similar; and
  • a search to determine if the domain name(s) are available.

Eligibility for a .com.au (2ld) domain name

To be eligible to register a .com.au domain name, an applicant must:

  • be a registered Company; of
  • the holder of a business name; or
  • an applicant for or the registered owner of a trade mark.

More information on domain names is available here.

Cybersquatters

It’s common nowadays because of the ubquity of the internet for two or more organisations in different countries to have equal rights to a domain name.  We are seeing with increasing frequency the need to register trade marks in multiple jurisdictions to effectively protect an organisation’s online reputation.

Social media accounts

Nowhere is the issue of competing rights to a name more obvious than on Twitter.  It is possible – and indeed has occurred – that two (2) organisations, one (1) incorporated in Australia and one (1) in Delaware (for want of a common example), both have the rights to a particular name, one (1) has registered the name on Twitter and other social media accounts, while the other hasn’t.  To protect a new brand, marketers should consider using services to register and hold accounts on social media platforms prior to the launch of a new brand, simply to stop cybersquatting in advance.  (Note that the author has not used Knowem.  You should make your own investigations and inquiries before using this service).

Social media monitoring

There are various free services that can be used to monitor one’s brand on social media networks.  At their most basic are Google Alerts.  Post something in a public forum mentioning Dundas Lawyers, and it will be delivered to our inbox first thing every day!

The most interesting thing about all of this is that the old axiom, prevention is better than the cure holds true when attempting to protect your brand online.  It may seem like an expensive extra step, but let me assure you, that it’s nothing compared to the expense and disruption of cross jurisdictional IP related litigation!

Further information

For further information on how Dundas Lawyers can assist your company to protect its brand online or to enforce its rights, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about brand and intellectual property protection

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    On 10 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim v Leung), allowing an appeal concerning alleged misuse of confidential supplier information by a former senior employee. The decision provides guidance on:…

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act).  The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…

    Read more …

  • Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…

    Read more …

  • Updates to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    Updates to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    The current Franchising Code of Conduct (Old Code) is scheduled to “sunset” (meaning it will automatically expire unless extended or replaced) on 1 April 2025, with the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulations 2024 (Cth) (New Regulations) coming into effect on the same date.

    Read more …

  • Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…

    Read more …

  • IP Australia follows Madrid Goods and Services list

    IP Australia follows Madrid Goods and Services list

    From 26 March 2024, IP Australia has implemented the internationally recognised Madrid Goods and Services list (Madrid List), replacing the AU Goods and Services Picklist.[1]  The adoption of the Madrid List comes as Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) seeks to align the Australian classification standards with the other intellectual property offices around the world.

    Read more …

  • The © (copyright) symbol in use

    The © (copyright) symbol in use

    It is something that is often overlooked, however it is considered best practice to add a copyright statement and the little © symbol (Copyright Statement) on any literary or artistic works (Works) that a business publishes and asserts that it owns.  Under Australian law, the “material form” of all original Works is automatically protected by…

    Read more …

  • Trade mark classification guidance from IP Australia

    Trade mark classification guidance from IP Australia

    There has been a surge in trade mark applications in the digital space, notably concerning virtual goods, virtual environments such as the metaverse, NFTs, and the blockchain according to observations made by IP Australia.  This article discusses the things to consider when selecting the classification(s) for virtual goods and services when filing an application for…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend