EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 383

Black Star Pastry v Richards

A Federal Court trade mark appeal about co-owned BLACKSTAR marks, coffee services, composite logos and cancellation of an invalid registration.

Federal Court of Australia8 Apr 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Brand ownership should be sorted before registration, licensing or expansion.
  • A Federal Court trade mark appeal about co-owned BLACKSTAR marks, coffee services, composite logos and cancellation of an invalid registration.

Use this to check

  • Co-owned trade marks should be registered in the correct ownership structure.
  • Consent from another owner may not fix a registration made by the wrong applicant.
  • Composite logo marks are assessed as whole marks, including distinctive graphics.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Black Star Pastry operated a specialty bakery and pastry business acquired in 2011, with origins in a business started around October 2008 and particular notoriety around its Strawberry Watermelon Cake.
    • Mr Richards operated a Blackstar coffee business and owned registered Blackstar trade marks connected with coffee beans and coffee beverages.
    • At first instance, Black Star Pastry had been found to infringe the Blackstar marks in relation to coffee and cafe services.
    • On appeal, Black Star Pastry challenged the validity of one registered word mark because Mr Richards had applied for it in his own name even though he was one of two joint owners.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether one joint owner could validly apply for registration of a trade mark in his own name under the Trade Marks Act, and whether Black Star Pastry's use of its marks was deceptively similar to the registered Blackstar marks in the relevant coffee and cafe contexts.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court granted leave to appeal, allowed Black Star Pastry's appeal and dismissed Mr Richards' cross-appeal.
    • It declared that Mr Richards was not the owner of trade mark number 1172976 at the priority date, ordered that mark cancelled or removed from the register, set aside the infringement declarations and ordered Mr Richards to pay Black Star Pastry's costs.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Brand ownership should be sorted before registration, licensing or expansion.
  • If two people own a mark together, one person registering it alone can make the registration vulnerable, and a composite logo may not block every later use of similar words.

Useful next steps

  • Co-owned trade marks should be registered in the correct ownership structure.
  • Consent from another owner may not fix a registration made by the wrong applicant.
  • Composite logo marks are assessed as whole marks, including distinctive graphics.
  • Adjacent businesses should check brand use by product category before expanding.
  • Sale, licence and founder-exit documents should say who owns each mark and logo.

Practical read

This case is the kind of brand dispute that can happen when two businesses grow around similar names in adjacent markets. Black Star Pastry was known for bakery products and cafes. Mr Richards' Blackstar business was about coffee. The problem became sharper because coffee sat close to both businesses, and because the registered marks did not all have the same ownership story or visual structure.

The Court accepted that the first registration problem mattered. Mr Richards was one of two joint owners of the BLACKSTAR word mark, but he had applied for registration in his sole name. Consent from the other joint owner did not make that the same thing as the joint owners applying together. The Court declared the registration invalid and ordered it cancelled or removed from the register.

The deceptive-similarity part is just as useful for business owners. One of the marks was not just a word. It was a composite logo containing the words BLACKSTAR COFFEE and a large star graphic. The Court looked at the whole mark and the way the allegedly infringing signs were used. The absence of the essential star graphic mattered. For a small business, the lesson is to separate the brand name, logo, ownership records and commercial channels.

Registering a logo is not always the same as controlling the words, and co-owned IP needs tidy paperwork before anyone applies alone.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Check who actually owns a brand before filing a trade mark application.
  • Use assignment or co-ownership documents before founders, partners or collaborators separate.
  • Register both word marks and logos where the business depends on both.
  • Compare marks in the actual product and service context, not only side by side.
  • Review coffee, food, retail and hospitality brand extensions before launch.

Key takeaways

  • Co-owned trade marks should be registered in the correct ownership structure.
  • Consent from another owner may not fix a registration made by the wrong applicant.
  • Composite logo marks are assessed as whole marks, including distinctive graphics.
  • Adjacent businesses should check brand use by product category before expanding.
  • Sale, licence and founder-exit documents should say who owns each mark and logo.

Related topics

IP & Brand ProtectionConsumer Law & TradingContracts & Commercial

How Sprintlaw can help

Trade Mark RegistrationIP AssignmentContract Review

Update history

Case8 June 2026

Current brand, scheme and liquidation cases added

Seven current Federal Court explainers were added for trade marks, schemes, ASIC records, trust liquidation, wage priority and investor reporting disputes.