Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JULY 2026

IP ENSight | July 2026

ENS
Explore more from ENS

This month's intellectual property updates explore critical questions at the intersection of AI, trade marks, and creative rights. From the meaning of honest concurrent use in Australian trade mark law to the evidentiary implications of ChatGPT prompts, these articles examine how traditional IP principles apply to modern challenges. The collection also delves into AI music training compensation, nostalgic brand revivals like the Toyota Cressida, and the famous UB40 band-name dispute that illustrates passing

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Ilse Du Plessis
Ilse Du Plessis
Rowan Forster
Rowan Forster
Bernard Dippenaar
Bernard Dippenaar
Jade Courtney
Jade Courtney
Janine Thomas
Janine Thomas
Author LinkedIn connections

This month, our IP updates include various topics:

1. ENS - News - Trade marks in Australia: Honest concurrent use | Jade Courtney

A recent Australian trade mark judgment has raised the question of what exactly is the meaning of 'honest concurrent use.'

2. Your ChatGPT prompts could become evidence one day | Dr Bernard Dippenaar

Many of us have become comfortable asking ChatGPT questions, brainstorming ideas or even drafting documents. But here is an important Intellectual Property lesson: what you type into an AI tool may one day become relevant evidence.

3. When AI learns from music, who gets paid?| Dr Bernard Dippenaar

The music industry has spent the last few years arguing that AI companies should not be allowed to train their models on copyrighted music without permission. Now a new dispute asks a different question: what happens after permission is granted?

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

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
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