Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd

This case arose from the use of the name LINDRUM for a Melbourne property development. Dr Janne Clara Lindrum said the Lindrum family name had a strong reputation and that T&P's use of LINDRUM for a commercial office project at 26 Flinders Street conveyed an association with, or authority from, the Lindrum family generally or from her personally.

T&P was the owner of the property and part of the Time & Place property development group. The site had previously operated as Hotel Lindrum for many years. That history was important because the respondent's position was not simply that it had picked a famous surname out of nowhere. The property had a long trading history under HOTEL LINDRUM and LINDRUM, and the building had prominent signage visible from the street and from approaches into the CBD.

Dr Lindrum sought urgent orders to stop the use of LINDRUM in connection with the development before the case reached a final hearing. She also tried to bring two additional companies into the proceeding at the interlocutory stage, one being a Time & Place group company and the other being the builder engaged on the project.

A useful feature of this decision is that the Court carefully identified what the case was, and what it was not. Dr Lindrum's originating application referred to trade marks in some respects, and there were related trade mark disputes running separately. But for the interlocutory application before the Court, the reasons make clear that she did not seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for trade mark infringement.

Instead, the Court treated the relevant claims as being for passing off, misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, and alleged contraventions of ss 181-184 of the Corporations Act. Her core complaint was that T&P's use of LINDRUM suggested a connection, approval or authority that did not exist, and that the name was being used to attract investment and support the development.

T&P denied that it needed Dr Lindrum's licence, authority or consent to use LINDRUM as a brand. It also denied that its conduct amounted to a misrepresentation or misleading or deceptive conduct. Importantly, T&P also challenged whether Dr Lindrum had established the relevant goodwill or reputation and whether she had standing to sue in respect of reputation said to belong to other family members or estates.

The reasons show that the site's history was central to the respondent's position. Hotel Lindrum had operated from 1999 until November 2022. The building had long-standing HOTEL LINDRUM signage on the façade, including roof signage visible to the public. That kind of evidence matters because it can shape how consumers understand a name. A court may ask whether the public sees the branding as a continuation of site history rather than a new claim of family endorsement.

The 1999 deed of settlement and co-existence was also significant. The recitals recorded that the then developer selected the name Hotel Lindrum in conjunction with some Lindrum family members, and the deed broadly resolved trade mark issues between those parties. For a business reader, this is a reminder that old settlement documents can become highly relevant years later. They may not answer every later dispute, but they can strongly affect the factual and commercial context.

The acquisition documents also mattered. T&P acquired the property on 24 May 2023, and as part of that purchase the registered LINDRUM trade mark in class 42 was assigned to it. The reasons also note that the previous owners had held a business name registration for HOTEL LINDRUM, although that registration was not transferred to T&P because of an administrative oversight and was later cancelled. None of that automatically defeats a passing off or ACL claim, but it helps explain why T&P said it was entitled to continue using the name.

The Court also recorded that there did not appear to be any direct link between Walter Lindrum and the property itself, although Dr Lindrum referred in the hearing to a billiard room in the building in the 1970s and to a nearby family billiard room in Flinders Lane. That point matters because it shows the Court was looking carefully at the factual basis for the claimed association between the family legacy and the site.

This was an interlocutory application. The Court was not conducting a final trial. It was deciding whether to grant urgent injunctive relief before the underlying claims were finally determined. The catchwords and orders show the usual interlocutory questions were in play: whether there was a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured immediate restraint.

In practical terms, the Court had to ask whether Dr Lindrum had shown a sufficiently arguable case in passing off or misleading or deceptive conduct, based on the allegation that T&P's use of LINDRUM conveyed an association with, or authority from, the Lindrum family or Dr Lindrum. The Court also had to consider whether the practical consequences favoured stopping the branding now rather than leaving the parties to fight the matter at trial.

There was also a procedural issue about joinder. Dr Lindrum informally sought to join Time & Place Development Pty Ltd and Kapitol Group Pty Ltd as respondents. The Court identified an immediate difficulty with that application: she had not prepared a proposed pleading setting out claims against those parties. The reasons also record evidence from T&P's director that Time & Place Development was not involved in the development plans for the property and was not connected with the property in any way. That was accepted for present purposes.

Moshinsky J dismissed the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. The Court also dismissed the informal application to join the two additional companies as respondents. Subject to any later written submissions seeking a different result, the applicant was ordered to pay T&P's costs of the interlocutory injunction application, and there was no order as to costs on the joinder application.

The reasons available here make clear that the Court was not persuaded to grant urgent restraint on the material before it. The extract repeatedly points to a central problem for the applicant: the evidence supporting key parts of her case was general rather than detailed. The Court said her affidavits contained little information about the activities and achievements of members of the Lindrum family and that some statements appeared to assume those matters were widely known. The Court accepted that she had invested time, energy and money into preserving and promoting the LINDRUM name, but said she had not adduced detailed evidence showing that the family name was widely known in the way she asserted.

The same issue arose on likely public association and confusion. Dr Lindrum said the general public always associated Hotel Lindrum with the Lindrum family and that many believed the property was family-owned or that the family received a licence fee. But the Court said she had not adduced detailed evidence as to whether the general public associated Hotel Lindrum with her family in that way. The Court also accepted that she had worked in property development services for some time, but said her material did not include detailed evidence showing that she was widely known in that field.

Those observations are important because they go directly to the strength of a passing off or ACL case at an urgent stage. If the alleged reputation and likely confusion are not supported by detailed evidence, the prima facie case becomes harder to establish. The reasons also show the Court was concerned about the breadth and lack of particulars in parts of the pleading, and about whether some allegations disclosed any cause of action at all.

For businesses, this case is a reminder that naming disputes are often about more than the trade marks register. A surname, family name or legacy venue name can create risk if the branding suggests endorsement, authority, sponsorship or family involvement that is not real. That is especially so where the marketing leans into heritage, prestige or personal legacy.

But the case also shows that a claimant cannot usually obtain urgent orders just by asserting that a name is famous or that the public will be confused. Courts want evidence. If you say a family name has a strong reputation, you need material showing the reputation actually exists in the relevant market. If you say consumers will think a project is endorsed by a family member, you need evidence supporting that likely impression. If you say your own personal reputation is being appropriated, you need evidence that the market knows you in the relevant field.

On the defence side, the decision shows the value of a documented commercial history. Long-standing use of a name at a site, visible signage, acquisition documents, assigned trade marks and earlier coexistence arrangements can all help explain why a business says it is entitled to continue using a brand. None of those matters gives complete immunity, but they can be powerful in resisting urgent relief.

The procedural side matters too. If multiple entities are involved in a project, the claimant still needs to identify the right parties and plead a proper case against them. Informal attempts to add parties without a proposed pleading can fail, especially where the evidence suggests a proposed party is not actually involved in the conduct complained of.

If you are launching a development, venue or service under a surname or historic name, this decision gives a practical checklist for risk management.

First, work out whether the name is being used because of a genuine site history, an acquired brand asset, a family connection, or simply because it sounds attractive. The answer affects both legal risk and how your marketing should be framed.

Second, check the chain of title. If you bought the property, did you also acquire the relevant trade marks, domain names, signage rights, goodwill or business names? If something was not transferred, can that gap be fixed? The reasons here show that even an administrative oversight about a business name registration can become part of the factual picture.

Third, review the public-facing material. Ask what an ordinary customer, investor or tenant would think. Would they see the name as a historic site identifier, or as a claim of family endorsement? The answer may depend on the words, images and heritage references used in the campaign.

Fourth, if you are the person objecting to the use, prepare evidence properly. Courts are unlikely to grant urgent relief based only on broad statements that a name is famous or that confusion is obvious. Evidence of reputation, consumer understanding and likely harm needs to be concrete.

Finally, remember that urgent applications are expensive and disruptive. A clean paper trail, careful messaging and early legal analysis can make a major difference to whether a dispute escalates into an injunction fight.

The judgment records that the hearing took place on 1 December 2025 and that judgment was delivered on 19 December 2025. The orders dismissed both the interlocutory injunction application and the informal joinder application. The costs position was left open to written submissions if any party sought a different costs order by the dates set out in the orders.

The broader dispute was still on foot. The reasons also refer to related trade mark proceedings and oppositions involving LINDRUM marks, including an appeal concerning the class 42 registration and opposition proceedings concerning a class 36 application. Those related matters formed part of the background, but they were not the basis on which the Court granted or refused interlocutory relief in this proceeding.