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

  • 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 …

  • Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright case

    Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright case

    This article examines the legal test for copyright infringement in Australia, using Ed Sheeran’s Court case in the UK as an example. Find out how the Courts determine when a song is a copy of another and what the implications are for musicians.

    Read more …

  • Australian Court: AI can’t be “inventor” in Australian patent

    Australian Court: AI can’t be “inventor” in Australian patent

    The Federal Court of Australia has made a groundbreaking ruling on the patentability of works created by Artificial Intelligence. Explore the implications of this decision and what it could mean for the future of patent law.

    Read more …

  • Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.

    Read more …

  • Ex-employees and intellectual property protection

    Ex-employees and intellectual property protection

    Ex-employees can be a threat to a company’s intellectual property, but with the right contractual clauses, employers can protect their trademarks, copyright, patent, and design. Learn more about how to safeguard your company’s intellectual property.

    Read more …

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

  • Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.

    Read more …

  • Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.

    Read more …

  • Phasing out the innovation patent system

    Phasing out the innovation patent system

    The Senate has recommended a bill that could have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. Find out what changes are proposed and what it could mean for your intellectual property.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend