IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

IP

by

Bogus Brands, Fake Flyers, and Deepfake Danger: The Law Behind the Nathan Cleary Image Scandal

Rugby league star Nathan Cleary is the latest Australian celebrity to have his image hijacked for commercial gain without consent — a reminder that in the AI age, the unauthorised use of someone’s likeness isn’t just a reputational risk. It’s often unlawful, and sometimes even criminal.

Just hours after this year’s Origin decider, fans returned to their cars at Sydney Olympic Park to find a flyer featuring a doctored image of Cleary, seemingly endorsing novelty car accessories. The image was fake. The quote was fake. The endorsement never happened. But the legal implications are very real.

So what’s actually being breached when someone misuses your face — and what can you do about it?

📸 No Statutory “Right of Publicity” — But You Still Have Legal Options

Australia doesn’t have a US-style statutory “right of publicity” or standalone image right. But celebrities aren’t powerless.

Legal remedies typically come from three key areas:

⚖️ 1. Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (Australian Consumer Law)

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive.

Using a person’s likeness — especially a high-profile figure like Nathan Cleary — in a way that suggests endorsement or association, when no such endorsement exists, will almost always be misleading.

This can apply even if no goods are sold, but the impression of association is strong enough to influence consumer behaviour.

Penalties can include injunctions, corrective advertising, damages, and fines for corporations and individuals.

🧠 2. Passing Off

A common law cause of action, passing off protects the goodwill a person or brand has built up. To succeed, you must show:

  • Reputation in the market

  • Misrepresentation (by the other party)

  • Damage to your goodwill or reputation

It’s often used by celebrities to stop unauthorised commercial use of their name or likeness. For sportspeople like Cleary — who command lucrative brand partnerships — unauthorised endorsements can undercut carefully curated sponsorship relationships.

🎨 3. Copyright and Doctored Images

If the image used was a reproduction or adaptation of a copyright-protected photo — for instance, one originally taken by a professional photographer — the flyer could infringe copyright as well.

Even digitally manipulated images (such as AI-generated or Photoshopped versions) may still reproduce a substantial part of the original.

🔒 Criminal Deception?

Cleary’s legal team has suggested this may also amount to obtaining a benefit by deception — a criminal offence under various state and territory laws.

That’s especially relevant where:

  • The misrepresentation is intended to induce consumers to buy something

  • The product may be part of a scam or fraudulent site

  • Consumers are financially harmed

This isn’t just civil IP — it’s potentially identity-based fraud.

🤖 AI Makes This Easier — and Worse

The ability to fake an endorsement has never been more accessible. AI image generators and editing tools now allow anyone to quickly create plausible likenesses of celebrities, insert fake quotes, or digitally recreate products.

What used to require a designer and Photoshop now takes 10 seconds and a prompt.

Without robust protections or swift enforcement, athletes and entertainers risk becoming unwilling frontmen for scammy brands or shady products — with little control over how or where their likeness appears.

🛑 So What Can Be Done?

For talent: Quick legal action is key. That includes cease-and-desist letters, takedown requests, and (where needed) court proceedings. Keep records of your brand deals — including exclusivity — and monitor the use of your name and likeness online.

For businesses: Don’t use a person’s image, name, voice, or persona to promote goods or services unless you’ve secured clear written consent. Even “harmless” nods or jokes can land you in hot water if the impression is that they’ve endorsed your product.

For regulators and sporting bodies: There’s a strong case for greater protection — not just for economic harm, but for consumer trust and brand integrity. Fans deserve to know when a product is genuinely endorsed, and when it’s just a digital fake.

Final Whistle

This isn’t just about one player and one flyer.

It’s a wake-up call about how easily digital tools can blur the line between real and fake — and why the law must be ready to blow the whistle when someone takes the mickey with a public figure’s face.

by

Brand Control, Part 4: “Lock It In” — How and When to Register Your Trade Mark

You’ve chosen your name. You’ve cleared it. You’re confident it’s distinctive and available. Now it’s time to make it yours — legally.

A strong brand name or logo might help you win customers, but unless it’s properly registered, it won’t help you win disputes. And the longer you delay, the more you risk someone else locking it up first.

When Should You Register?

The short answer: as early as you can. Ideally, you’d file before launch — while you’re still in development — so you can resolve any issues before your brand goes public. But that’s not always practical.

  • Before launch: Best practice. Gives you a chance to pivot if there’s a conflict.

  • Right after launch: Still fine — but the longer you wait, the more you risk third-party interference or knock-offs.

  • After years of use: Better late than never. Prior use may support your rights, but without registration, they’re much harder to enforce.

And remember: while Australia protects first use, many countries follow a strict first-to-file rule. If someone else files your brand overseas before you do — even without using it — you may lose your chance to register or enforce it.

Trade mark “squatting” is a thing – a thing preferably to be avoided.

Where Should You Register?

Start with the country you’re operating in — typically your home market. In Australia, that means filing with IP Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995.

If you’re looking to expand globally, consider the Madrid Protocol — an international filing system that lets you apply in multiple countries via a single application. You must first have a home-country application or registration, and your international rights will depend on that base filing.

However, Madrid isn’t always the right tool for every country or situation. In some markets, a direct national filing is still better — especially if you’re concerned about local examination delays, enforcement practicalities, or use requirements.

🧳 We’ll go deeper on global strategy in Part 9: From Garage to Global.

What Kind of Trade Mark Should You File?

There’s more than one way to register a mark. The form you file should match your brand strategy:

  • Standard mark: For word-only marks (names, taglines). Best for maximum flexibility.

  • Device mark: For logos, custom fonts, or stylised branding elements.

  • Series mark: For similar marks with small variations (e.g. Tasty Treats vs Tasty-Treats). Less common, and sometimes more trouble than they’re worth.

  • Defensive mark: Available only for famous brands, offering broader coverage across unrelated classes.

  • Certification mark: Used to indicate goods or services meet a recognised standard (e.g. organic, halal). Strict rules apply.

One thing to watch when filing a logo or device mark: if you file it in colour, your rights may be limited to that specific colour scheme. Unless colour is a core part of your brand identity, it’s usually better to file in black and white or greyscale — so your protection extends to all colour variants.

Like most things, there are exceptions to this.

🎨 We’ll cover colour vs greyscale filing in more depth in an upcoming bonus post.

💡 IP Mojo Tip

The earlier you file, the stronger your position — and the safer your brand. Waiting until you’re “big enough to matter” might just make you a bigger target. Brand protection isn’t a vanity move — it’s risk management with long-term payoff.

by

IMDb v DMDb: One Letter’s Difference Not Enough

Zumedia Inc’s attempt to register DMDb as a trade mark in Australia fell flat—thanks to its awkward proximity to a far more famous acronym: IMDb.

Zumedia, a Canadian company behind a digital media platform called “Digital Media Database,” applied to extend its international trade mark registration for DMDb into Australia. But IMDb, the internet’s go-to entertainment database, wasn’t about to let that slide. Backed by nearly 30 years of global use and widespread recognition in Australia, IMDb opposed the extension under section 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995.

IP Australia sided with IMDb. Despite the difference in the first letter, Delegate Tracey Berger found the marks visually and aurally similar, especially given the overlapping services—both related to searchable databases of entertainment content. Australian users, she held, could easily assume DMDb was affiliated with or endorsed by IMDb.

Zumedia tried to argue that DMDb was a unique acronym and that “Db” simply stood for “database.” Ironically, that only strengthened the opposition’s case: as the Delegate pointed out, consumers often remember brands imperfectly. The shared “-MDb” element was enough to trigger a mistaken belief in a connection.

She also referenced prior cases—including AAMI and Tivo v Vivo—to reinforce the point: when a well-known mark has a strong reputation in the same field, even small differences won’t eliminate the risk of confusion.

The outcome?  Extension of protection refused. Costs awarded against Zumedia.

🎬 IP Mojo Takeaway: If your brand sits one letter away from an iconic name in the same industry, don’t count on slipping through. Trade mark law doesn’t look kindly on near-misses that come too close to the main act.

 

by

Brand Control, Part 3: “Great Minds Think Alike?” — Clearance Searching and Avoiding Brand Disasters

You’ve found the perfect brand name. It’s clever. Catchy. The domain is available. The branding agency loves it. You’re ready to roll.

But before you commit… have you checked if someone else already owns it?

Why Searching Is Not Optional

It’s one of the most common — and costly — mistakes: a business pours time, energy, and tens of thousands of dollars into branding, only to receive a cease and desist letter from a prior trade mark owner. Worse still, they may find themselves facing an opposition at IP Australia, a rebrand mid-launch, or a lawsuit they never saw coming.

Trade mark clearance searching is your early warning system. Done properly, it can help avoid disputes, legal fees, rebranding costs, and loss of customer goodwill.

And it doesn’t have to be complicated.

Types of Searches

Not all searches are created equal. Depending on your budget, timing, and risk tolerance, here are the key search types you might consider:

  • Knockout search: A quick check of the Australian Trade Mark Register for identical or near-identical marks in your relevant classes. Fast and cheap, but limited in scope.

  • Full availability search: A comprehensive legal review of both registered marks and unregistered use — including business names, social media handles, websites, and domains. This helps you identify potential passing off or s 60 (Trade Marks Act 1995) issues where someone may not have registered their mark, but has a strong reputation.

  • International searches: If you’re planning to operate or file overseas, don’t stop at Australia. Check WIPO’s Global Brand Database, the Madrid Monitor, and key national registers (USPTO, EUIPO, etc). Remember: first to file wins in many countries.

What to Watch For

Even if your exact mark isn’t on the register, you still need to look out for:

  • Similar marks in the same or closely related goods/services
    (e.g. SwiftTech for software vs Swiftek for IT services)

  • Slight spelling variations or phonetic equivalents
    (e.g. Kwik Kleen vs Quick Clean)

  • Well-known unregistered brands
    Even without registration, a brand with a strong reputation can stop yours under section 60 of the Act — if consumers are likely to be confused.

💡 IP Mojo Tip

Clearance is brand insurance. The earlier you search, the cheaper your pivot if needed — and the more confidently you can build your brand knowing it won’t collapse under a letter of demand.

by

Brand Control, Part 2: “Born to Stand Out” — Choosing a Trade Mark That Can Actually Be Registered

Not every brand name is created equal. In the eyes of the law, the more descriptive your mark, the weaker your rights.

That might sound counterintuitive — especially to marketers and founders who want a brand name that says exactly what the business does. But from a trade mark perspective, the best brand names do more than describe — they distinguish.

The Distinctiveness Spectrum

Trade mark registrability hinges on one core concept: distinctiveness. The more distinctive a mark is, the more likely it is to be accepted by IP Australia — and the easier it will be to enforce down the track.

You can think of trade marks as falling on a distinctiveness spectrum:

  • Generic terms (like Milk for milk) are never registrable. They’re the language of the trade, not a badge of origin.

  • Descriptive marks (like Quick Loans for a lending service) are difficult to register unless you can prove long and widespread use that’s made the name distinctive over time.

  • Suggestive marks (like Netflix for entertainment) can sometimes succeed if they require a leap of imagination and aren’t used commonly in the industry.

  • Arbitrary marks (like Apple for computers) are legally strong — because they don’t describe the goods at all.

  • Fanciful marks (like Xero or Google) are invented words. These tend to be the strongest of all: highly protectable and uniquely tied to their brand.

Common Pitfalls When Picking a Name

Some names feel brand-like but run into trouble at the registration stage. Here are a few traps to watch for:

  • Geographic references: A name like Brisbane Plumbing Services might be accurate, but it’s also highly descriptive and hard to protect. It tells people what you do and where — but not who you are.

  • Industry terms: A name like LegalEdge might sound sharp, but if it clearly relates to legal services, it may lack the distinctiveness needed for registration — especially if similar names are already on the register.

  • Foreign language words: Just because a word isn’t in English doesn’t mean it’s distinctive. If the translation is something generic (like Dolce, which means “sweet”), it may still be treated as descriptive.

  • Initialisms and acronyms: These can be difficult to protect unless the public has come to associate them with your business (think IBM or ANZ). Until then, they often get treated as meaningless strings of letters.

💡 IP Mojo Tip

If your brand name tells your whole story at first glance, there’s a good chance it’s too descriptive to protect. Aim for memorability, not just meaning. A good trade mark doesn’t explain — it sticks.

by

Perry v Perry – Round 3 in the High Court

The long-running IP clash between Australian designer Katie Taylor (aka Katie Perry) and US popstar Katheryn Hudson (aka Katy Perry) has now reached the High Court. Both sides have filed their submissions—and the gloves are well and truly off.

Let’s unpack the arguments.

🎤 The Trade Mark at War

At the heart of the dispute is Taylor’s registered mark KATIE PERRY for clothing, registered in 2009. Hudson’s team argues that it should never have been allowed to stay on the register—because of her own fame under the name Katy Perry, and the likelihood of confusion in the public mind.

This fight has already been through:

  • The Federal Court (where Taylor won on infringement, but the respondents failed to cancel her trade mark),

  • and the Full Federal Court (which overturned the trial judge and ordered cancellation under ss 60 and 88(2)(c)).

Now, Taylor’s appeal to the High Court gives us an opportunity to see how the highest court will treat the tricky interplay between reputation, confusion, and celebrity brand extension.

⚖️ Key Appeal Issues

The submissions squarely raise three points of trade mark law importance:

  1. Reputation Must Be in a Trade Mark, Not Just a Name
    Taylor argues (citing Self Care IP) that reputation in a person isn’t enough—section 60 requires a reputation in a trade mark used to distinguish goods or services. The respondents say that “Katy Perry” was functioning as a mark in connection with music and entertainment—even if not for clothes—by the priority date.

  2. Deceptive Similarity ≠ Confusion from Reputation
    Taylor says the Full Court wrongly blurred section 60 with the s 10 concept of deceptive similarity, using “imperfect recollection” logic that belongs elsewhere. She maintains that just because the names look similar doesn’t mean there’s a s 60 ground for cancellation unless confusion arises because of the earlier mark’s reputation.

  3. Discretion Under s 89: Who’s at Fault?
    The Full Court held that Taylor’s act of applying for the mark—with knowledge of Katy Perry’s fame—was enough to defeat the saving provision in s 89. Taylor argues this turns s 89 into a dead letter. Is the act of registration itself always a fault? If so, what’s left for discretion to do?

👑 Celebrity Brands and Trade Mark Realpolitik

The respondents press the idea that by 2008, there was an established trend of pop stars launching fashion lines—and that any member of the public hearing “KATIE PERRY” on a swing tag might assume a connection with the singer. They argue:

  • Reputation in entertainment was enough to ground confusion over clothes;

  • The law shouldn’t insist on technical “use as a trade mark” when real-world fame does the work.

Taylor says: Not so fast. Reputation should attach only to actual marks used to distinguish goods. And if the singer hadn’t sold clothes in Australia before the priority date—let alone registered a mark for clothing—why should she get a monopoly over a local designer’s name?

🧵 Threads to Watch

This appeal gives the High Court a chance to clarify several issues that matter beyond this case:

  • What counts as reputation in a “trade mark”? Is global fame enough?

  • Does fame create a shadow monopoly over unrelated goods where the celebrity hasn’t yet traded?

  • When is confusion “likely”? Must it be tied to reputation for the same goods?

  • Is s 89 still alive? Or does knowledge at the time of filing always kill it?

🪙 Final Stitch

This is a rare IP battle where both sides have established, legitimate reputations—and where delay, co-existence efforts, and evolving fame all muddy the waters. Whatever the High Court decides, it’s likely to have ripple effects across celebrity branding, merchandising strategy, and the interpretation of section 60.

🧵 Stay tuned.