Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 MAY 2010

The Mantra Decision: Strata Titled Properties: Registered Trade Marks

Addisons
Explore more from Addisons

The 26 March 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 291 demonstrates the importance of property developers and managers having registered trade marks.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Martin O'Connor
Martin O'Connor

Overview

The 26 March 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 291 (Mantra Case) demonstrates the importance of property developers and managers having registered trade marks.

The Mantra Case is also important for brand owners in general, as it demonstrates the circumstances in which a domain name registration incorporating a trade mark can constitute trade mark infringement.

Background Facts

Mantra Group Pty Ltd (Mantra) is the property manager and exclusive onsite letting agent for the Circle on Cavill apartment complex at Surfers Paradise. Mantra holds approximately 261 apartments in the complex. Apartment owners are free to choose whether to contract with Mantra or with an offsite letting agency.

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

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