Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 MARCH 2013

Raising the Bar - Trade Mark Opposition Periods Change

Swaab Attorneys
Explore more from Swaab Attorneys

Trade mark owners need to review any current market monitoring, to ensure their processes can meet a shorter timeframe.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Swaab Author
Swaab Author
Swaab Author
Swaab Author
Author LinkedIn connections

IN BRIEF

Changes to Australia's intellectual property regime will come into full effect on 15 April 2013. These changes affect many of the processes and procedures for patent, design and trade mark protection.

For trade mark owners, this will mean that the period within which a third party can oppose an accepted application from being registered will be reduced from 3 months to 2 months. The change also applies to opposition to removal of a trade mark for non-use. This change will apply to any trade marks that are advertised as accepted on or after 15 April 2013, or any applications for removal of a trade mark advertised on or after 15 April 2013.

This shorter timeframe means that trade mark owners need to review any market monitoring that they currently undertake, to ensure that their processes allow for sufficient time to meet this significantly shorter deadline. This change makes it even more important to act quickly (and to obtain appropriate

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

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
Article

Employ­ers Ban­ning AI Smart Glass­es From The Workplace

As wearable AI technology becomes more prevalent, employers face critical decisions about whether to ban smart glasses in the workplace. This analysis explores the privacy, cybersecurity, and workplace surveillance risks associated with AI-enabled eyewear, while examining the legal framework for regulating their use. Two important exceptions—disability accommodations and workplace safety—complicate what might otherwise be a straightforward prohibition.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys
Article

Land­lords Beware: New Tobac­co Laws Could Mean Heavy Fines and Even Gaol Time

New South Wales has introduced strict legislation targeting landlords who knowingly permit tenants to sell illicit tobacco and vapes from their premises. With penalties reaching $165,000 and potential imprisonment, property owners must now actively monitor tenant activities and report suspicious behavior. The legislation also grants landlords new powers to terminate leases when closure orders are issued, fundamentally changing the landlord-tenant relationship in commercial retail settings.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys
Article

Per­son­al Lia­bil­i­ty For Build­ing Defects: The Scope Of Sec­tion 37 Of The Design And Build­ing Prac­ti­tion­ers Act 2020 (NSW)

The NSW Supreme Court's decision in Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd v STM123 Pty Ltd confirms that directors and project managers can face personal liability under section 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 for breaching statutory duties of care in construction projects. This case examines how individuals who supervise, coordinate or exercise substantive control over building work may be held personally responsible for economic losses arising from construction defects, even when acting
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys
Article

When Is Entry Into A Lot With­out The Lot Own­er’s Con­sent Per­mit­ted To Car­ry Out Repair Work To Com­mon Prop­er­ty? When There Is An Emergency

A New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal case examines when an owners corporation can lawfully enter a lot without owner consent to repair common property under emergency provisions. The dispute centered on whether ongoing water leakage constituted an emergency justifying entry, and what damages flow from such access.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys
Article

Decen­ni­al Insur­ance For New Apart­ment buildings

The New South Wales Government has introduced Decennial Liability Insurance (DLI), a groundbreaking 10-year no-fault insurance policy for new apartment buildings that guarantees protection against serious defects even if developers or builders become insolvent. This legislative reform, passed through the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, fundamentally changes how apartment owners are protected from structural failures and serious defects.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys