Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 OCTOBER 2024

Fee Changes For Trade Marks And Designs In Australia – Effective 1 October 2024

K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Contributor
K&L Gates

K&L Gates

The Firm K&L Gates is an integrated, international law firm. As a single global law firm, truly...

View firm profile
Explore more from K&L Gates

IP Australia has implemented fee changes for trade marks and designs from 1 October 2024.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Joanna A Diakos
Joanna A Diakos
Adam Dimasi
Adam Dimasi

IP Australia has implemented fee changes for trade marks and designs from 1 October 2024.

What Does It Mean for Intellectual Property (IP) Owners?

Trade Marks

For trade marks, the fee changes:

  • Do not affect the cost to file a trade mark;
  • Do not affect the cost to renew a trade mark;
  • Do affect the cost to oppose registration of a trade mark;
  • Do affect the cost to remove a trade mark for non-use; and
  • Do increase the amount of costs recoverable by a successful party in oppositions.

What Effect do the Fee Changes Have for Opposing Registration of a Trade Mark/ Removing a Trade Mark for Non-use?

The fee changes affect the cost to run an opposition or non-use cancellation action in the following ways:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Text-Message Marketing In Texas, One Year After SB 140

Texas Senate Bill 140 (SB 140) took effect 1 September 2025, and applies to conduct occurring on or after that date. The bill amended Section 302 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code to extend registration and disclosure requirements to text messages by expanding the definition of “Telephone solicitation,” which previously applied only to a “telephone call,” to include certain transmissions of text or graphic messages and images. In addition, SB 140 added a definition of “Telephone call” that incorporates the definition found in Section 304, which includes certain text or graphic messages and images, but excludes certain agreed-to transmissions.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

SEC And CFTC Open Door To Tokenized Markets After Clarity Fails To Advance

The SEC and CFTC have issued coordinated regulatory relief measures that significantly advance crypto-based trading infrastructure in US markets, bypassing Congressional gridlock on the CLARITY Act. These orders establish new frameworks for tokenized securities venues and passive software providers, potentially reshaping how digital assets are traded and accessed in regulated markets.
United StatesFinance and Banking
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

Venezuela's Reopening: Investment, Infrastructure, And Technology Opportunities In A Rebuilding Latin America

Venezuela's post-Maduro reopening is creating unprecedented opportunities for foreign investors across energy, mining, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors. With expanding OFAC sanctions relief, landmark legislative reforms, and major US companies nearing multibillion-dollar deals, the country presents investment prospects not seen in a generation—though success requires disciplined navigation of corruption, security, and regulatory risks.
United StatesInternational Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

EU AI Act: Final Guidelines On Transparency Obligations Under Article 50

The European Commission has issued guidelines on transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act, clarifying how providers and deployers must inform individuals when they interact with AI systems or are exposed to AI-generated content. These non-binding guidelines address a wide range of AI applications, from chatbots to deepfake technologies, and establish four main transparency scenarios with specific disclosure requirements that businesses must now prepare to implement.
European UnionGovernment, Public Sector
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

New EU Withdrawal Button Requirement: Practical Implications And Recommendations For US And Global Online Sellers

The European Union's new Consumer Rights Directive amendment introduces a mandatory "withdrawal button" for online merchants, fundamentally changing how consumers exercise their 14-day right of withdrawal from distance contracts. This requirement, effective June 19, 2026, applies to any trader—including US-based companies—actively selling to EU consumers, creating new compliance obligations around button placement, design standards, data collection, and confirmation processes. Understanding whic
European UnionConsumer Protection
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

United States Opens A New Chapter In Civil Nuclear Cooperation With The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia

The United States and Saudi Arabia have signed a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishing the legal framework for decades of civilian nuclear partnership. This agreement resolves years of debate over nonproliferation conditions and positions US companies to participate in Saudi Arabia's ambitious civil nuclear program. The deal carries significant implications for US engagement in the Middle East, international nuclear commerce, and the global competiti
GlobalGovernment, Public Sector
K&L Gates
K&L Gates