Deakin University v Macreadie [2026] FCA 481

This case is about a familiar commercial problem dressed in an academic setting. A well-known individual built a public-facing brand around a specialised service offering, then later sought to continue using that brand through a separate company. The institution where the work had been carried out said the brand goodwill belonged to it, not to the individual or the new company.

Deakin University said that the goodwill associated with the Blue Carbon Lab name and logo belonged to Deakin because the lab operated through Deakin, from Deakin’s campus, with Deakin-paid staff, under Deakin-managed funding and through Deakin’s commercial arrangements. Blue Carbon Lab Pty Ltd, incorporated in 2023, proposed to provide environmental research services on a commercial basis under that same name. Deakin argued that if the company represented itself as owner of the brand, goodwill or associated rights, that would mislead the market.

The extract also shows that Professor Macreadie genuinely believed the Blue Carbon Lab was his. The judge treated that belief as relevant to the bad faith trade mark issue, but not as determinative of the Australian Consumer Law issues. That distinction matters. In business disputes, honest belief and legal ownership are not always the same thing.

The extract traces the brand back before Professor Macreadie became a full-time Deakin employee. He first encountered the term “blue carbon” in 2009 and later shifted his research focus to that field. While employed by UTS, he used the name “Macreadie Lab”. In about October 2014, during an honorary appointment with Deakin and while still employed by UTS, he decided to rename the Macreadie Lab to “Blue Carbon Lab”.

He also took practical branding steps before full-time employment at Deakin began. The extract says he registered the domain name bluecarbonlab.org in his own name, created social media accounts between October and December 2014, and arranged design work for a logo and website redesign. The website launched in about December 2014 using the Blue Carbon Lab name in stylised text. There were also pre-employment social media posts in evidence.

But the court did not stop there. The extract says that after Professor Macreadie commenced full-time employment with Deakin in February 2016, he asked Deakin to pay the invoice for the logo design and website redesign, and Deakin did so. From then on, the Blue Carbon Lab operated from Deakin’s Burwood campus, was staffed by members on the Deakin payroll, and Deakin entered into commercial arrangements for research services provided through the lab. Deakin also managed the lab’s financial and operational logistics, including paying operating expenses and managing research funding.

That broader commercial picture appears to have been central. The case was not decided simply by asking who first coined the name or who first registered a domain. It turned on how the brand functioned in the market and whose business activities generated the relevant goodwill.

The main issue was whether Deakin, rather than Professor Macreadie or Blue Carbon Lab Pty Ltd, owned the goodwill associated with the Blue Carbon Lab name and logo. That mattered because the company proposed to provide environmental research services on a commercial basis under that branding. Deakin said it would be misleading or deceptive for the respondents to represent that the company owned the brand, owned the goodwill, had the right to use the branding, or had Deakin’s sponsorship, approval or affiliation.

Deakin therefore sought permanent injunctions under section 232 of the Australian Consumer Law, based on alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18. The extract lists the kinds of conduct Deakin wanted restrained, including representing ownership of the mark or logo, representing ownership of the goodwill and reputation associated with them, representing a right to use them, representing sponsorship or affiliation with Deakin, and using the Blue Carbon Lab name or logo in connection with environmental research services.

There was also a trade mark dispute. Blue Carbon Lab Pty Ltd had filed applications for the word mark and the logo mark in August 2023. The word mark remained under examination, while the logo mark had been registered. Deakin sought rectification of the register under section 88 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing both bad faith and lack of ownership.

The extract shows the court had to keep those issues separate. A person may honestly believe they own a mark, which can matter to bad faith, but still fail on the distinct question of whether they were legally the owner entitled to registration. That distinction is commercially important because businesses often assume that if bad faith cannot be shown, the registration must stand. This case shows that is not necessarily so.

On the published extract, Deakin succeeded on the core ownership and Australian Consumer Law issues. The catchwords state that Deakin was the owner of the goodwill of the lab. They also state that a disposition of a source of goodwill might reduce the value of the goodwill but does not extinguish it. Importantly, the extract says that Professor Macreadie was an employee of Deakin and undertook the lab’s activities in that capacity, and that his use of the name and marks as an employee for commercial endeavours was Deakin’s use.

That finding supported the grant of injunctions. The catchwords record that the applications for injunctions were granted. The orders section then shows that the parties were directed to confer about the form of final orders and any ancillary matters and costs, with a process for filing agreed or competing proposed orders. So the reasons resolved the substantive issues, but the exact final orders were still to be settled after the reasons date.

On the trade mark side, Deakin had mixed success. Its bad faith challenge failed. The extract says the judge found that Professor Macreadie subjectively believed he owned the rights to the logo mark, and that an application made under a mistaken belief as to ownership does not, without more, amount to bad faith. But Deakin still succeeded on ownership. The catchwords say the second respondent was not the owner of the trade mark, Deakin was the first user of the logo as a trade mark, and rectification on the ground of ownership was granted.

That combination is one of the most useful parts of the case for business readers. It shows that a registration can be vulnerable even where the applicant was not acting dishonestly in the legal sense.

The extract repeatedly points back to the employment and operating structure around the brand. Professor Macreadie’s contract of employment required him to act in good faith towards Deakin, use his best endeavours to maintain and extend Deakin’s interests and reputation, and comply with Deakin’s policies and procedures. The contract also referred to Deakin’s intellectual property statute, which the extract says included rights relating to trade marks, service marks and commercial designations.

At the same time, the extract makes clear that Deakin did not run the case as a breach of contract claim. Instead, those employment and intellectual property arrangements were relied on as reinforcing Deakin’s claim to ownership of rights relating to the unregistered name, logos and associated goodwill. That is a practical point for businesses. A dispute about branding may be shaped by contract terms even if the pleaded causes of action are misleading conduct and trade mark rectification rather than breach of contract.

The judge also examined Professor Macreadie’s evidence about his understanding that Blue Carbon Lab would be affiliated with, but separate from, Deakin. The extract says the judge did not accept that an email relied on by Professor Macreadie provided a reasonable basis for that understanding, and did not accept that any other reasonable foundation for that claim had been identified. The extract records a concession in cross-examination that the email did not provide the foundation claimed.

For business owners, this is a reminder that later statements about what everyone supposedly understood will be tested against documents, legal relationships and actual commercial conduct. Courts are likely to ask: who was the employer, who was the contracting party, who paid the bills, who administered the funding, and what did the documents really say?

The most practical lesson is that goodwill is built through trading reality, not just creative contribution or personal profile. If your business has a branded team, service line, studio, clinic, lab or product identity built by a charismatic employee or contractor, ask who the market is actually dealing with. If customers contract with your company, your company pays the staff, your company funds the work and your company manages the operations, the goodwill may sit with the company even if one person is the public face.

The case also shows the danger of informal assumptions. A person may say, “I brought this brand with me” or “everyone knows this is my brand”. That may feel commercially true from their perspective, but it may not match the legal position once the brand has been used inside another entity’s business. If the business wants the brand to remain company-owned, it should say so clearly in contracts and asset records. If the parties genuinely intend a different arrangement, that also needs to be documented clearly and implemented consistently.

Another practical point is that registrations and digital assets should not be left in personal names without a clear ownership structure. Domain names, social handles, websites, logos and trade mark applications often become the pressure points in a departure dispute. If they are held personally while the business is building the goodwill, the mismatch can create expensive litigation risk.

Finally, if a key person is leaving and wants to keep using a brand developed during their engagement, do not rely on assumptions or goodwill alone. Work through ownership, licences, transfer arrangements, public communications and any rebranding steps before the departure becomes public.

This checklist is especially important in founder-led and personality-led businesses, where personal reputation and company goodwill can blur together. The stronger the personal profile of the individual, the more carefully the business should separate personal branding from company-owned branding.

Where a dispute is already underway, the extract in this case shows how closely a court may examine the commercial setting. Businesses should expect scrutiny of who employed the team, who contracted with external parties, who paid expenses, who managed funding and what the documents actually support.

The reasons are dated 24 April 2026. The extract says the parties were to confer and, if agreement was reached, file a minute of agreed orders by 1 May 2026. If they could not agree, they were to file proposed orders and short submissions by that date, with a further hearing listed for 6 May 2026 about final orders.

That means the published reasons resolved the main issues but contemplated a further process to settle the exact form of final orders and any ancillary matters and costs. Readers should keep that procedural point in mind when relying on the case.

This page explains Deakin University v Macreadie [2026] FCA 481 using the published Federal Court reasons extract dated 24 April 2026. The extract identifies the case as involving Australian Consumer Law injunction claims and Trade Marks Act rectification claims concerning the Blue Carbon Lab name and logo.

Because the published reasons extract is truncated and the orders section shows that final orders were still to be settled, readers should treat this page as a practical explanation of the issues and outcome visible in that extract, rather than a substitute for checking the complete reasons and entered orders.