Defending or enforcing your businesses intellectual property (IP) rights in copyright, trademarks, patents and confidential information can be critical for success. IP is the new millennium battleground where the fight for competitive advantage can be won or lost.
What is an intellectual property dispute?
IP disputes are generally thought of as a battle of competing rights holders. The rights in question range from confidential information, registered and unregistered trademarks, patents registered designs and copyright, which can be both registered and unregistered.
Dundas Lawyers® expertise in intellectual property disputes
Dundas Lawyers® acts for businesses to identify, enforce and defend their IP rights and has acted for a range of businesses to defend or enforce these rights inside and outside of the courtroom. We also have experience in advising on related causes of action that are often associated with IP disputes including passing off, misleading and deceptive conduct and false and misleading statements under the Australian Consumer Law and breaches of directors’ duties.
Dundas Lawyers® are experts in IP disputes including (but not limited to):
- breach of confidence;
- breach of copyright;
- trademark infringement;
- patent infringement; and
- design infringement.
We try to write in plain English, however because we are lawyers we consider that it may be useful to provide a summary of the things that an IP rights holder has to prove to a Court to be successful in the prosecution of an IP claim as follows:
Breach of confidence
A breach of confidence can be either contractual, statutory, equitable or all of these. To establish a breach of confidence, a business wanting to protect its confidential information must:
- particularise with some precision the exact nature of the confidential information that is said to have been misused;
- plead how the confidential information was kept confidential, how the respondent(s) knew or should have known that that it was confidential and the steps that had been taken to keep it strictly confidential;
- describe the basis (contractual, statutory, equitable) that the confidential information was to be kept confidential by the respondent(s); and
- plead that the respondent(s) were under a duty not to use or disclose the confidential information for their own benefit or the benefit of a third party.
Read more about breach of confidence.
Breach of copyright
The elements to be satisfied for the copyright owner to establish a breach of copyright will of course depend on the type of copyright works (Works) that have been infringed – various classes of literary works, computer code, compilations of data, and artistic works (Works) for example. Generally, however the owner of the copyright must:
- particularise the specific works that are alleged to have been infringed by the respondent(s);
- establish ownership and originality of the works in question;
- state how the works were first published in Australia;
- state how the works in question have been infringed within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);
- state how the infringement amounted to a substantial reproduction of the Works in question;
- particularise how the applicant(s) has or will suffer loss and damage because of the infringement; and
- include any additional circumstances that give rise to additional damages for flagrancy because of the acts of the respondent(s).
The above is a summary only as each case rests on its own facts. Read more about breach of copyright.
Trademark infringement
To establish infringement of a registered trademark the owner must:
- state the trademark in question that has been infringed, prove that it is the owner and state the date on which it was first used;
- show how the applicant has acquired a reputation associated with the trademark in question;
- show how the applicant has used the trademark in conjunction with its business to promote its goods or services; and
- state how the alleged infringers conduct in using the mark to promote its good or services is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered trademark.
Of course, the above is a general summary only. For more about trademark infringement read our page on trademark infringement.
Patent infringement
Generally, to establish infringement of an Australian registered innovation or standard patent the applicant must:
- describe the patent in question that is valid and subsisting, it’s priority date and complete information about its ownership;
- describe the claims of the patent in suit, the dates when products were marked with the patent in suite that embody the integers of the patent(s);
- describe whether or not the patent in suit was certified (in the case of an innovation patent); and
- particularise how the respondent(s) has infringed the patent in suit by promoting and selling a product that contains the essential integers of the claims of the patent in suit.
Patent revocation
In defending allegations of patent infringement it is not unusual for the respondent to cross claim against the applicant alleging that the patent in suit should never have been granted in the first place. The grounds that a patent can be revoked in this way are not closed but generally mirror the threshold requirements for registration of the respective patent in the first place.
To read more about patent infringement or cross claiming because the patent in suit should never have been granted (revocation) in the first place see our page on patent infringement.
Infringement of registered design
To establish infringement of an Australian registered design, the applicant must:
- provide complete information about the owner of the registered design in suit; and
- describe the registered design including its registered design number, it’s filing date, the registration date and the date on which it was certified.
Read more about infringement of a registered design.
IP decisions of Courts by Dundas Lawyers®
Dundas Lawyers® have expertise in both initiating and defending for all type of intellectual property. Our list of decisions and the subject matter is as follows:
- Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 106 – copyright, literary and artistic works, confidential information, breach of directors duties, breach of contract, misleading and deceptive conduct, false and misleading statements.
- Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 – corrective advertising orders.
- Gardner Industries Pty Ltd as trustee for the S M Gardner Family Trust v Telstra Corporation Limited [2021] FCA 294 – website blocking orders, copyright, literary and artistic works, compilations of data, computer code;
- Campbell v Sutherland [2020] FCA 765 (25 May 2020) – trademarks;
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 8 (8 January 2020) – patents, confidential information;
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1882 (27 November 2018) – disputed discovery in patents matter;
- Multisteps Pty Ltd v Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 587 (2 May 2018) – patents and registered designs; and
- Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 – copyright, literary and artistic works.
Recent videos about intellectual property disputes by Dundas Lawyers®
Disclaimer
This page contains general commentary only about IP litigation and disputes. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Why choose Dundas Lawyers® to advise on intellectual property litigation?
Having exerted Blood Sweat and Years® since April 2010 we are the team you want on your side for the long term to act as the ‘bodyguard’ for your business to protect its intellectual property and stand up for your rights. Some of the reasons client’s choose Dundas Lawyers® include:
- our Uncommon business acumen;
- our Uncommon expertise in all types of IP Litigation;
- our Uncommon expertise in transactional, compliance and litigious matters;
- our Uncommon customer focus;
- the fact that we don’t just know Law, we know Business!
- how we leverage our Uncommon Nous® to provide client centric solutions.
Need a lawyer to protect your business in an intellectual property dispute?
For a confidential, no obligation initial telephone call to find out how we can help your business gain an uncommon advantage in initiating or defending an IP dispute in an Australian Court please phone our team on either 1300 386 529 or 07 3221 0013.

Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au

Complete the form below and we will respond to your inquiry within one (1) business day from the moment you press Submit.
Intellectual property litigation enquiry
Australian intellectual property Legislation
- Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
- Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth)
- Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
- Designs Regulations 2004 (Cth)
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
- Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
- Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth)
- Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations 1994 (Cth)
- Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
- Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)
Recent insights about aspects of intellectual property litigation
-
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…
-
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…
-
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.
-
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…
-
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…
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding intellectual property disputes
-
Harlech Enterprises Pty Ltd v Beno Excavations Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 639
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant previously worked for respondent and had access to respondent’s confidential information / intellectual property – where applicant seeks redactions to discovered documents – where parties are competing trade rivals – Recent cases about confidential information Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0639For more information, see the original judgement.
-
Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Limited (No 4) [2024] FCA 607
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside order under r 39.05(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – Where order entered in favour of the applicant – Where the applicant is no longer trading – Where the trademark is no longer registered – Where no benefit derived from the order – Where all parties…
-
Vitaco Health IP Pty Ltd v AFI Cosmetic Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 598
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) and/or (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where the respondents have failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear – allegations of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off – where marks were used by…
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v LGSS Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 587
BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – application by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleging that defendant contravened ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DF(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) by making false or misleading representations, and engaging in conduct liable to mislead the public in relation to investments made by the superannuation fund…