Business Law Library & Tracker
IP & Brand Protection
Trade marks, copyright, licensing, confidentiality and ownership rules for business assets.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerLegislation
Trade Marks Act 1995
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Copyright Act 1968
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Tracker
Cases
Self Care IP Holdings v Allergan
Brand strategy should be checked before launch. Businesses need to consider registered marks, packaging, product naming and the overall impression created for customers.
Outcome: The High Court found against the key trade mark and consumer law claims. In broad terms, the Court did not accept that the challenged words were being used in the infringing way alleged, or that the relevant misleading representation was conveyed to reasonable consumers.
Calidad v Seiko Epson
A patent owner may not control every downstream use after first sale. Businesses refurbishing, repairing, importing or reselling patented products need to understand the exhaustion line.
Outcome: The High Court allowed Calidad's appeal. A majority accepted the exhaustion doctrine and held that the relevant modifications did not amount to making a new product; they were modifications of products that had already been sold.
Kraft v Bega
Treat get-up, packaging and product presentation as transaction assets. In this case, the Court's summary of the primary judgment was that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017 and that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired. The appeal failed because Kraft's core argument about the 2012 restructure documents was rejected. For a business owner, the lesson is not just to list registered marks in a sale or restructure. You should identify unregistered get-up, goodwill, recipes, packaging files, transitional branding rights, and any obligations a buyer is assuming under earlier group agreements. If the deal expects continuity on shelves from day one, the documents need to say exactly what visual presentation and goodwill move with the business, and what does not.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed Kraft's appeal with costs and dismissed Bega's cross-appeal with costs. The Court rejected Kraft's core argument that the 2012 restructure documents allocated the Peanut Butter Trade Dress to the North American grocery business. Instead, the Court held that, properly construed in commercial context, the trade dress was allocated to the global snacks business. The Court's summary of the primary judgment also records findings that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017, that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired, and that Bega had not breached any assumed restructure obligations by doing so.