IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Scott Coulthart

by

Copy That, Part 9 – International Protection: Does My Copyright Travel?

Copyright doesn’t stop at the border. Thanks to international treaties, Australian works enjoy protection in most countries around the world.

But while copyright travels, enforcing it can be another story.

The Berne Convention

Australia is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which has over 180 signatories. The convention requires each member country to give works from other member countries the same copyright protection they give their own.

In practice:

  • An Australian author’s novel is protected in France, the US, Japan, and most other places automatically.

  • No need to register abroad (though some countries, like the US, still require local registration before suing).

Enforcing overseas rights

While protection exists automatically, enforcement depends on local courts and procedures. That means:

  • You may need local lawyers and expertise.

  • Remedies differ country to country.

  • Cultural and practical considerations can affect how disputes play out.

Beyond Berne

Australia is also part of other agreements, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty and various free trade agreements, which extend and harmonise protections.

IP Mojo tip: plan internationally

If your work has export potential—books, software, films, brands—consider international contracts, licences, and partnerships to support enforcement, rather than relying on litigation in a distant jurisdiction.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 10 – Copyright Myths Busted: Top Misunderstandings

by

When Copying Doesn’t Pay: Lift Shop v Next Level Goes All the Way Up

What happens when copyright infringement is admitted but the “big ticket” remedies fall away?

The recent battle between residential lift rivals Lift Shop and Next Level Elevators shows how hard it can be to turn technical wins into commercial victories.

The Backstory

Lift Shop and Next Level are fierce competitors in the Australian residential lift market. The dispute began when a Lift Shop quotation template found its way into Next Level’s hands in late 2019. Next Level adapted the template and used it for a few months until April 2020.

Lift Shop sued in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, claiming:

  • Copyright infringement of its quotation documents,

  • Breach of confidence over information allegedly supplied by a former employee, and

  • Misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL in relation to marketing and compliance claims.

Next Level hit back with its own ACL allegations.

The Primary Judgment (June 2024)

Judge Baird found that Next Level (and two of its directors) had indeed infringed Lift Shop’s copyright by using the quotation template. But the win was thin:

  • Additional damages refused: Although infringement was established, the Court declined to award extra damages under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act. The use was brief, not particularly lucrative, and not deemed “flagrant.”

  • Breach of confidence dismissed: Lift Shop couldn’t prove its customer quotes were truly confidential. Some of the same material had even been accessible on its website due to a coding plug-in glitch.

  • ACL claims failed on both sides: The Court wasn’t persuaded that either company had misled consumers about their lifts. Importantly, the judge observed the Court was not an industry regulator.

In short, Lift Shop walked away with a declaration of infringement, but none of the additional relief it wanted.

The Appeal (August 2025)

Unhappy with the limited result, Lift Shop appealed to the Full Court. Its main targets were:

  1. Additional damages – arguing the primary judge was wrong to rule them out before quantum was assessed.

  2. Flagrancy – insisting Next Level’s copying was sufficiently egregious to attract extra damages.

  3. Confidential information – contending the judge erred in finding no breach of confidence and in admitting documents obtained from its website by Next Level’s solicitors.

The Full Court (Feutrill, Neskovcin and Moore JJ) dismissed the appeal:

  • Additional damages can be decided early: The Court confirmed that entitlement to additional damages can be determined at the liability stage, even before election or quantum. Entitlement and quantification are distinct steps. This follows the approach in Redbubble v Hells Angels and Motorola v Hytera.

  • Flagrancy is a matter of degree: The assessment under s 115(4) isn’t binary (“flagrant or not”). It involves weighing the degree of flagrancy along with other factors. The primary judge’s evaluative judgment disclosed no error under House v The King.

  • No confidentiality: A Lift Shop customer quote was not confidential, particularly when similar documents were accessible online. The Court also held that Next Level’s solicitors had not acted improperly in locating documents via the website.

Result: appeal dismissed with costs.

Key Takeaways

  • Copyright is not a lottery ticket. Even where infringement is admitted, additional damages are far from automatic. Courts look for truly egregious, flagrant conduct.

  • Two steps to additional damages. Entitlement and quantification are separate. Entitlement can be determined at the liability stage – and losing that fight early can dramatically weaken a case.

  • Confidentiality must be managed. If “confidential” material can be accessed on a public website, or is too widely circulated, courts are reluctant to protect it.

  • ACL claims cut both ways. Rival traders often throw ACL allegations at each other, but without strong evidence, the Court may simply dismiss both.

Why It Matters

For litigants, this case is a reminder that winning the infringement battle doesn’t always mean winning the war on remedies. Strategic choices about pleading confidentiality, securing websites, and framing additional damages arguments can decide whether a lawsuit delivers real value—or just a hollow declaration.

by

Copy That, Part 8 – Infringement and Enforcement: What Happens When It Goes Wrong

Copyright gives creators powerful rights. But those rights only matter if you can enforce them when someone crosses the line.

What counts as infringement?

Infringement happens when someone does any act reserved for the copyright owner—copying, distributing, adapting, performing—without permission or a valid exception.

Importantly, it doesn’t have to be deliberate. Even unintentional or “I didn’t know” copying can still be infringement.

The test isn’t whether the whole work was copied. Reproducing a “substantial part”—which can mean the heart or essence of the work—is enough.

It’s Not About Quantity

The test for infringement – that is, reproduction of a substantial part – is not about how much was copied.  That is, it is not a quantitative test.

It is actually a qualitative test – it is all about the quality of what was copied.  That is, how important to the whole copyright work is the part that was reproduced?

Indirect liability: authorisation

Australian law also recognises authorisation liability.

If you help or encourage infringement, or fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it (for example, running a platform that hosts pirated content without safeguards), you can be liable too.

Remedies: what can you do?

Rights holders can seek:

  • Injunctions (court orders to stop the infringement)

  • Damages (compensation for loss)

  • Account of profits (handing over profits earned from the infringement)

  • Additional damages (where the infringement is flagrant or in bad faith)

  • Delivery up or destruction of infringing copies

Practical enforcement

Litigation isn’t always the first step. Often, a cease-and-desist letter, a platform takedown request, or a negotiated licence can resolve disputes faster and cheaper.

Enforcement is as much about strategy as law.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 9 – International Protection: Does My Copyright Travel?

by

You Can’t Corner “Better”: TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER Survives Opposition

If your brand is built on praise, don’t be surprised when you can’t block others from using it.

That’s the message from a recent Trade Marks Office decision where Better Beer Holdings tried — and failed — to stop TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER from registering.

The Players

  • Better Beer Holdings Pty Ltd – behind the BETTER BEER brand, co-founded by Nick Cogger and comedy duo The Inspired Unemployed (with a strong “tradie vibe” in its marketing).

  • TRADIE Holdings Pty Ltd – owner of the TRADIE brand, here applying for TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER for beers and related beverages.

The Opposition

Better Beer ran three grounds:

  1. s 44 – Deceptively similar to their BETTER BEER marks.

  2. s 60 – Reputation in BETTER BEER would make confusion likely.

  3. s 42(b) – Use would be contrary to law (misleading under the ACL).

Why the Case Failed

1. Section 44 – Not deceptively similar

  • Both marks share “beer” and “better” but have different overall impressions.

  • TRADIE is a prominent lead element; “beer built better” flips the word order and creates its own alliteration.

  • “Better beer” is a laudatory/descriptive phrase — unlikely to be monopolised.

  • No “real tangible danger” of confusion when compared as wholes.

2. Section 60 – Reputation not enough

  • Sales and promotion were significant, but much use was with the ribbon device or in get-up, not the plain words alone.

  • Even assuming reputation in BETTER BEER, it lacked the “communicative freight” to make TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER risky.

  • The “tradie” theme in marketing wasn’t unique enough to bridge the gap — plenty of beer is pitched to tradies.

3. Section 42(b) – ACL claims collapse

  • Once confusion wasn’t made out under s 60, misleading/deceptive conduct couldn’t be made out either.

Decision

  • All grounds failed — TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER proceeds to registration.

  • Costs awarded against Better Beer.

IP Mojo Takeaways

  1. Descriptive marks are weak weapons – “Better Beer” is the kind of praise any brewer might use. Even with strong sales, it’s hard to exclude others.

  2. Whole-of-mark comparison matters – Prominent extra elements (like “TRADIE”) and re-ordered slogans can be enough to avoid deception.

  3. Reputation needs distinctiveness – It’s the mark’s pull as a badge of origin that counts, not just marketing volume.

  4. Costs risk is real – Lose on all grounds, and you’re paying the other side’s costs.

Citation: Better Beer Holdings Pty Ltd v TRADIE Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 147

by

Menus Won’t Save You: Merivale’s “est” Loses Class 16 in Non-Use Battle

When your brand is famous in one field, can it keep rights in goods you barely touch?

Merivale’s long-closed Sydney fine-dining institution est recently learned the hard way that incidental printed materials — like menus or event stationery — won’t necessarily save a trade mark registration for “printed matter” in Class 16.

The Players

  • Hemmes Trading Pty Ltd (Merivale) – Owner of the est restaurant brand since 2000.

  • Est Living Pty Ltd – A design publisher with an online magazine “Est” since 2011.

Est Living applied under s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) to partially remove Merivale’s est registration for non-use in Class 16 (paper goods, printed matter, photographs, stationery).

The Evidence Game

Merivale’s “use” case relied on:

  • Wedding/event menus branded est

  • Mentions of est in Merivale’s “Weddings” book and on social media

  • Contracts and invitations naming est as a venue

  • An argument that menus were “goods in the course of trade” like in the Realtor decision

The problem?

The Delegate found:

  • Menus and invitations were ancillary to restaurant services — not sold or traded as Class 16 goods.

  • Branding on venue/event collateral was dominated by “Merivale”, with est appearing only as a location reference.

  • No convincing evidence of est-branded printed goods in the Relevant Period that actually functioned as a trade mark for Class 16 goods.

The “COVID Obstacle” Argument

Merivale claimed pandemic lockdowns were an “obstacle to use” under s 100(3)(c). The Delegate wasn’t persuaded:

  • The restaurant closed for renovations before COVID.

  • Private events still ran during the period, so use was possible.

  • Delay in reopening wasn’t justified by pandemic impacts alone.

Discretion? Declined.

The Registrar’s discretion under s 101(3) is a safety valve, but it’s not there to protect unused marks for sentimental reasons. Public interest tipped the scales:

  • est had a dining reputation, but not for Class 16 goods.

  • Keeping unused goods on the Register would “clog” the system and create unnecessary hazards for other traders.

The Result

Partial removal succeeded. The est registration now covers only:

Class 32: Beers, mineral and aerated waters, non-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks/juices, syrups, and preparations for making beverages.

Costs were awarded against Merivale.

IP Mojo Takeaways

  1. Goods vs Services – Use for services doesn’t automatically translate to use for goods, even if the goods are part of the service experience.

  2. Menus ≠ Market Goods – If they’re free, incidental, and tied to the service, they probably won’t save your Class 16 claim.

  3. Obstacle Defence Is Narrow – COVID didn’t help here because the closure predated it and events continued.

  4. Discretion Won’t Fill the Gaps – If you can’t prove use or genuine intent, public interest will clear the Register.

Citation: Est Living Pty Ltd v Hemmes Trading Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 142

by

Copy That, Part 7: Licensing and Assignment: How to Use and Share Copyright

Owning copyright doesn’t mean you have to keep it locked away. In fact, some of the most powerful uses of copyright come from sharing it—on your terms. That’s where licensing and assignment come in.

Licensing: permission with strings attached

A licence is essentially permission for someone else to use your work in a certain way. You remain the owner, but you set the rules.

Licences can be:

  • Exclusive – only the licensee can use the work in that way (even you, the owner, may be excluded). Exclusive licences should always be in writing.

  • Non-exclusive – you can license the same rights to multiple people at the same time.

  • Implied – sometimes the circumstances imply a licence (e.g. sending your customer a graphical design they asked you to make for their business cards implies they can have it copied on to their business cards). But relying on implication is risky—always better to spell it out.

Creative industries often use open licences like Creative Commons to allow broad, standardised sharing. These licences can be very flexible, but once granted, they can’t easily be revoked.

Sidebar: Creative Commons vs Copyleft

These two often get confused, but they’re not the same thing.

  • Creative Commons (CC):
    A suite of standard licences that creators can choose from. Some are very open (like CC0, which waives rights), while others are more restrictive (like CC BY-NC, which bars commercial use).

  • Copyleft:
    A philosophy that says: you can use, modify, and share this work freely, but if you create something new from it, you must share that new work under the same terms.

  • Where they overlap:
    Some Creative Commons licences, like CC BY-SA, include a “ShareAlike” condition. That’s essentially a form of copyleft—any derivatives must be licensed the same way. But not all Creative Commons licences have this feature.

👉 In short: Creative Commons is a toolkit of licences. Copyleft is a principle. Some CC licences apply copyleft; others don’t.

Assignment: a permanent transfer

An assignment is different: it transfers ownership itself.

  • Assignments must be in writing and signed by the current owner.

  • They can cover all rights, or just some (e.g. assigning film rights but keeping publishing rights).

  • Once assigned, the new owner steps into your shoes and can enforce copyright as if they were the creator.

Assignments are common in publishing contracts, music catalogues, software acquisitions, and business sales.

Why the distinction matters

  • A licence gives someone permission; you still own the copyright.

  • An assignment gives someone ownership; you no longer do.

Mixing the two up in a contract can cause years of confusion—or even litigation.

IP Mojo tip: share smart, not loose

When letting others use your work, always be clear:

  • Who is allowed to use it

  • What they can do with it

  • Where and for how long they can use it

  • Whether the permission is exclusive or not

  • How much (if anything) they’ll pay for it

That clarity is what turns copyright from a legal safety net into a practical business tool.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 8 – Infringement and Enforcement: What Happens When It Goes Wrong
Because copyright only matters if you can enforce it when lines are crossed.