IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Trade Marks

by

IMMIGPT Blocked: OpenAI’s GPT Reputation Stops Immigration Trade Mark

What happens when you take a world-famous tech acronym and bolt it onto your own business name?

An Australian migration services provider just found out — the hard way — that riding the coat-tails of GPT’s fame can sink your trade mark application, even outside the tech sector.

The Players

  • OpenAI OpCo LLC – creator of GPT, ChatGPT, and other AI products with global reach.

  • Realoz International Pty Ltd – provider of immigration and legal services, trading via a platform called “IMMIGPT”.

The Mark and the Fight

Realoz applied to register IMMIGPT in Class 45 for migration and immigration services.

OpenAI opposed on multiple grounds, but ran s 42(b) (contrary to law) and s 60 (reputation) at the hearing.

The Delegate focused on s 60 — whether OpenAI’s GPT marks had a reputation in Australia before 25 April 2023, and whether that reputation made confusion likely.

Reputation in Overdrive

OpenAI launched GPT in 2018, then GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4. In November 2022, ChatGPT arrived and “exploded in popularity”, becoming the fastest-growing consumer app in history — hitting 100 million monthly users in two months.

By the relevant date:

  • Australians were using ChatGPT in law, architecture, retail, beauty, marketing, accounting — and for everything from recipes to speechwriting.

  • The media coverage was intense; even those who hadn’t tried it had heard of it.

The Delegate found substantial reputation in both GPT and ChatGPT in Australia.

Why Confusion Was Likely

Realoz argued GPT was just a descriptive acronym (“generative pre-trained transformer”) and that it had a disclaimer on its site disavowing any link to OpenAI.

The Delegate disagreed because:

  • Most Australians wouldn’t know GPT’s technical meaning.

  • Even if they did, they’d still associate it with OpenAI.

  • “IMMIGPT” mirrored the ChatGPT construction — suggesting an “immigration” version of ChatGPT or immigration services powered by OpenAI’s GPT software.

  • The Applicant had agreed to OpenAI’s T&Cs — so it clearly knew about the marks.

The result? A significant number of consumers would be likely to wonder if IMMIGPT was connected to OpenAI.

The Decision

  • s 60 established — registration refused.

  • Costs awarded against the applicant.

IP Mojo Takeaways

  1. Fame Spreads Fast – A trade mark can acquire reputation in months if public uptake is explosive.

  2. Tech Acronyms Aren’t Neutral – If the public recognises an acronym as a brand, expect trouble using it — even for unrelated services.

  3. Construction Counts – Mimicking a famous brand’s naming pattern (“___GPT”) invites an association in consumers’ minds.

  4. Disclaimers Don’t Cure Confusion – If your name suggests a link, a footnote won’t save you.

Citation: OpenAI OpCo LLC v Realoz International Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 141

by

What’s in a Name? Paige LLC Fails to Block “Sage + Paige” Despite Collab Confusion Claims

In a decision straight from the catwalk of modern trade mark law, the Federal Court has dismissed a challenge by Californian fashion label Paige LLC against the Australian brand Sage + Paige, ruling that the newer composite marks are not deceptively similar to PAIGE and won’t mislead fashion-savvy Aussie consumers.

Decision: Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750 (10 July 2025) (Needham J)

👗 Background: Denim v Dresses

Paige LLC, known globally for its premium denim and celeb collabs, owns the trade mark PAIGE in Australia. When Aussie fashion house Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd applied to register two composite trade marks—Saige + Paige (stylised with a pink circle) and Sage + Paige (stylised, but text-only)—the US company objected under:

  • Section 44: deceptive similarity to its PAIGE marks, and

  • Section 60: likelihood of confusion due to its established reputation.

The core argument? That the “+” sign in Sage + Paige might lead consumers to believe it’s a collaboration with PAIGE—a well-known practice in fashion.

⚖️ The Court’s Take

Justice Needham accepted that brand collaborations (or “collabs”) are indeed a recognised trend, and the notional consumer might think of such things. But that wasn’t enough.

“The use of two names with the same stylisation tend to indicate… a singular brand name, rather than two separate, collaborating, brand names.” — Needham J at [89]

Despite PAIGE having a modest reputation in Australia, the Court found no real, tangible danger of deception or confusion. The composite marks were deemed to stand on their own: visually unified, aurally distinct, and conceptually grounded in a “two names, one brand” tradition, not a collab cue.

🧵 Key Takeaways

  • “+” doesn’t equal collab: Just linking two names with a plus sign doesn’t automatically imply co-branding, even in industries where collabs are common.

  • Given names don’t always dominate: Paige is not an invented or highly distinctive term; it’s just a given name, and its presence doesn’t override the overall impression.

  • Stylisation and consumer habits matter: The Court looked at actual branding trends and consumer practices (like buying online and familiarity with fashion collabs).

🪡 The Bottom Line

This is a rich example of the law stitching together traditional principles of deceptive similarity with modern commercial practices. It shows how context—consumer knowledge, industry trends, brand stylisation—can make or break a trade mark opposition, even where name overlap exists.

For now, Sage + Paige gets to strut the IP runway without tripping over PAIGE’s heels.

by

Café Conundrum: Black Star Pastry’s Trade Mark Trouble

Richards v Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1226 is a cautionary tale in brand coexistence gone wrong — where parallel growth by two businesses using similar names eventually led to a Federal Circuit and Family Court stoush over coffee, cakes and trade mark rights.

Brewing conflict

Martin Richards and his then-wife started a Brisbane-based social enterprise in 2007 called Blackstar Coffee, roasting beans and selling espresso from carts and cafés. He registered the word mark BLACKSTAR in 2007 and a composite BLACKSTAR COFFEE mark in 2009, covering coffee, coffee beverages and related goods.

Unbeknownst to him at the time, pastry chef Christopher Thé opened a bakery in Newtown, Sydney in 2008 under the name Black Star Pastry — complete with its now-famous strawberry watermelon cake and a reputation that soon spread globally (and virally). Thé registered Black Star Pastry as a business name in 2008 and eventually incorporated Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd (BSP) in 2011.

Though Richards became aware of the Sydney business around 2011 and made contact with Thé, no formal resolution followed. Over the next decade, BSP grew into a multi-store operation in NSW and Victoria, increasingly offering café services and coffee beverages — areas overlapping with Blackstar Coffee’s core trade mark rights.

Trade marks collide

The dispute centred on whether BSP’s use of the phrase BLACK STAR PASTRY — including in logos and retail branding — infringed Richards’ earlier BLACKSTAR marks.

BSP argued that:

  • Its core business was bakery, not coffee;

  • The term Black Star Pastry was distinguishable;

  • Its trade marks had been accepted and registered by IP Australia after amending the specification to exclude “café services” and “specialty coffee retailing”;

  • Any coffee sales were ancillary or covered by its own “bakery services” registrations;

  • Richards had acquiesced by failing to object earlier.

Richards, meanwhile, argued that BSP:

  • Was selling coffee and operating cafés under the Black Star Pastry name;

  • Was using the sign as a trade mark in relation to goods and services covered or closely related to his registrations;

  • Was likely to cause consumer confusion;

  • Couldn’t rely on s 122(1)(e) as a defence because coffee wasn’t squarely within BSP’s registered bakery services;

  • Should not benefit from any perceived delay in enforcement.

The Court’s blend

Judge Manousaridis found in favour of Richards on the infringement claim. The key findings:

  • BSP was using BLACK STAR PASTRY as a trade mark for both coffee and café services.

  • These services were either directly covered by or closely related to the BLACKSTAR registrations.

  • The marks were deceptively similar — particularly given the visual and phonetic similarity, the shared “Black Star” element, and the use in closely related contexts (coffee and cafés).

  • BSP could not rely on its own trade mark registrations as a defence under s 122(1)(e) — because those registrations expressly excluded coffee retailing and café services.

  • Richards’ prior knowledge and phone call with Thé did not amount to acquiescence or delay sufficient to bar relief.

Takeaways: more than just crumbs

This decision serves up some useful reminders:

  • Clearance is key: Registering a business name doesn’t grant trade mark rights — and failing to conduct proper searches can be costly a decade down the line.

  • Expansion needs a check-up: A pivot or expansion into adjacent services (like coffee within a bakery) may breach earlier rights, even if your mark was initially registrable with exclusions.

  • Acquiescence isn’t easily made out: A polite phone call in 2011 won’t shield years of brand growth from an infringement claim — especially when the overlap intensifies over time.

  • Name components matter: While Black Star Pastry and Blackstar Coffee may sound just different enough to lawyers, the average café-goer isn’t parsing the spacing.

In the café world, Black Star may once have stood for two different brands in two different cities — but as the beans (and cakes) spread, the law says one star had to fall.

by

Brand Control, Part 5: “The Subtle Art of Brand Control” — Trade Mark Ownership and Assignment

Trade marks are valuable assets — but like any asset, their value depends on who owns them.

Too often, businesses assume that if they’re using a brand, they own it. But that assumption can fall apart quickly in the face of legal scrutiny, especially when an investor, acquirer or opposing lawyer starts asking questions.

Getting trade mark ownership wrong isn’t just a technical slip. It can torpedo a funding round, delay a sale, or even expose a business to infringement claims from within its own camp.

🔗 Common Ownership Traps

Let’s start with a few real-world scenarios where ownership can become dangerously unclear:

1. Employees vs Contractors
If an employee develops a brand name or logo in the course of their employment, the default position is that the employer owns it. But if you used a contractor — say, a freelance designer or marketing agency — then unless there’s a clear written agreement transferring IP, they may legally own the mark.

This is especially true if the contractor applied to register the trade mark themselves — and it happens more often than you’d think.

2. Founders and Side Projects
A founder might register the brand name in their own name early on, before the business is incorporated. That might seem harmless — until the business seeks capital, or goes to sell, and it turns out the company doesn’t actually own its own brand.

Investors will spot this immediately in due diligence. So will buyers. And neither of them will want to negotiate with a founder’s ego when they’re paying for a company asset.

3. Joint Ventures
When two businesses collaborate on a new offering, they often co-create a brand. But without an express agreement, who owns it? Half each? One party? Neither?

Ambiguity in a joint venture brand is a recipe for dispute — particularly if one party starts using the brand solo down the track.

📑 Assignments and Transfers: Cleaning Up the Chain of Title

The good news? Trade marks are assignable — they can be transferred from one entity to another like any other form of property.

But they need to be:

  • Documented in writing — via a deed or agreement; and

  • Formally recorded with IP Australia (if the mark is registered).

Some common triggers for assignment include:

  • Business restructures (e.g. transferring IP from founders to the company, or from one group company to another)

  • Sale of business or assets

  • Fixing past mistakes (e.g. if a mark was filed by one entity but you want the trade mark held by another entity)

You can’t just tell people a trade mark belongs to your company. If it was registered under someone else’s name — a founder, contractor, or prior owner — you need to assign it, and record the transfer.

🚫 Assignments Don’t Cure Invalidity

Be careful — an assignment won’t fix an invalid application.

If a trade mark application is filed in the name of a party who is not the true owner of the mark at the time of filing, the application is invalid. You can’t fix that simply by assigning it later to the correct entity. The application is fatally flawed from the start — and may be removed or opposed on that basis.

So how do you know who the “true owner” is?

Ask:

  • Who created the mark?

  • Was it created by an employee, contractor, or external agency?

  • Was it commissioned, and if so, under what terms?

  • Who controls the use of the mark in trade?

  • Who will actually use the mark in connection with goods or services in Australia?

In most cases, the true owner is the entity that first intends to use the mark, or controls its use in trade and commerce. If you’re registering for a company that doesn’t exist yet — wait until it’s incorporated. If you’re using a contractor, make sure IP is assigned before the application is lodged.

If you’ve already used the mark as a trade mark before getting your corporate structure sorted, then the person or entity that first used it is probably the true owner. In that case:

  • Either apply in that party’s name, or

  • Assign the trade mark to your intended applicant before filing.

In either case, get tax and accounting advice first — there could be capital gains tax or other structuring implications worth considering before assigning IP or applying under the wrong name.

💡 IP Mojo Tip

Own the brand before you build the brand.

  1. Identify the true owner on day one – the party that first creates and controls use of the mark.

  2. Put it in writing – deed of assignment or employment/contractor clauses that clearly vest IP.

  3. Record it – lodge the assignment (or the application) in the correct name with IP Australia straight away.

  4. Audit early, audit often – confirm ownership before every financing, restructure, or marketing push.

If you nail these four steps, you’ll avoid the “who-really-owns-it?” drama that derails deals and drains legal budgets.

by

Brand Control, Bonus Part 4A: “Black, White, or Brand Colours?” — Filing Your Trade Mark in the Right Format

When it comes to registering your logo as a trade mark, most people obsess over what to file — but give little thought to how they file it.

That might sound cosmetic. It’s not.

Whether you lodge your logo in colour, greyscale, or black and white can significantly affect your legal rights — especially when it comes time to enforce them or defend against a non-use challenge.

⚖️ Why Format Matters

The version of your logo that you register defines the scope of your protection. That includes not only the design itself, but also the colour (or lack of it). Get this wrong, and you may end up with a trade mark that’s narrower than you think — or worse, vulnerable to attack.

Let’s break down the key options.

🖤 Filing in Black and White (or Greyscale)

This is the default for many businesses — and with good reason.

Pros:

  • Broader protection: A black-and-white filing generally covers all colour variants, meaning you can enforce your rights even if you present the logo in red, green, blue, or rainbow.

  • Future-proofing: Gives you flexibility if your brand palette evolves.

  • Administrative simplicity: No need to worry about strict consistency between your filed version and the colours you actually use.

Cons:

  • If colour is a core brand element (think Cadbury purple or Tiffany blue), filing in black and white might dilute your distinctiveness case.

  • In the EU and some other jurisdictions, courts and registries have begun interpreting black-and-white marks more narrowly — treating them as literally black-and-white. That means that in those jurisdictions, using your mark in colour may not constitute use of your registered black-and-white version.  This trend hasn’t reached Australia (yet), but it’s worth noting.

🎨 Filing in Colour

In some cases, colour isn’t just decoration — it’s branding. If your logo’s colour scheme is heavily marketed and instantly recognisable, a colour filing might be worth it.

Pros:

  • Supports claims to distinctiveness through colour — which can help if you’re pursuing colour trade mark protection in its own right.

  • Reflects real-world use if your brand always appears in that colour scheme.

Cons:

  • May limit your rights in some jurisdictions — but not in Australia, where a logo filed in colour will generally still cover variations in other colours unless colour has been expressly claimed as part of the trade mark.

  • In Australia, there’s no general risk of non-use removal for using your logo in different colours — unless your registration specifically claims colour as a feature. That said, it’s still cleaner (and less arguable) to use the mark in a form close to the one registered.

🎯 Some Things to Watch

1. Evidence of Use Needs to Align (More or Less)

If your logo is registered in colour but you only ever use it in black and white (or vice versa), and you’re defending against a non-use removal action, your evidence might still be accepted — but it’s always safer if the colours match, or if colour wasn’t part of the mark to begin with.

2. Madrid Protocol and International Filings May Be Affected

Whichever registration forms your Madrid Protocol base — whether or not it’s an Australian application — the representation you file (including colours) will carry through to your international applications.

Some jurisdictions treat colour as limiting, even if Australia doesn’t. In the EU, China, South Korea and others, colour is more tightly tied to the rights you’re granted. So what might be broad in Australia could be narrow overseas if you rely on a colour version as your base.

🧭 Rule of thumb: File in each jurisdiction — including separately if necessary — in the same format in which you propose to use the mark there.

3. Misalignment with Brand Identity

If your brand identity is highly colour-driven (again, Cadbury purple or Tiffany blue), filing a version in colour without claiming the colour might undercut future arguments that the colour is distinctive.

You can’t have it both ways: either colour matters, or it doesn’t. If it does, claim it. If it doesn’t, don’t build your distinctiveness case on it later.

✅ Best Practice in Australia

So, what should you do?

  • If colour isn’t essential to your brand’s identity: stick with black and white (or greyscale) for broader and more adaptable coverage — unless you’re filing via the Madrid Protocol and plan to use the mark in colour in a colour-sensitive jurisdiction. In that case, you may need to file your base application in colour too — as long as that won’t cause issues in your base jurisdiction.

  • If colour is central to your brand strategy: consider filing both a colour version and a black-and-white version — or prepare strong use evidence to back your colour claim.

  • If your logo use varies across products or channels: a black-and-white filing gives you the most legal breathing room in Australia. Or, if your variants differ materially, file multiple versions (or a series application, where appropriate).

⚠️ Filing in multiple formats may mean more upfront cost — but it could save you a fortune later if your brand is challenged or infringed.

💡 IP Mojo Tip

Don’t confuse design preference with legal strategy. Your brand might look best in colour — but from a legal perspective, black and white may give you more options.

That said, the best general rule is this: File it how you propose to use it.
If you know the colour combinations you plan to use for the medium term, consider a series application covering those variants — or file multiple applications if that’s cleaner for your international strategy.

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.