Discover how dupe culture, trademarks and copyright collide. Barrister Susan Gatford breaks down the Aldi copyright case and IP rules for look-alike products.Director and Principal Clerk of Svenson Barristers Anna Svenson sits down with Susan Gatford – barrister, mediator and trademark attorney – to unpack the rising trend of “dupes” in beauty and retail. From Instagram-fuelled hype to the landmark Aldi Australia packaging decision, learn where the legal lines are drawn and what brands should consider before copying a competitor’s look and feel.

Key Takeaways

• Understand the economics that drive brands to release copycat products
• Learn the difference between trademark and copyright protection in Australia
• Hear how TikTok and Instagram have super-charged dupe culture
• Get practical tips to protect your brand or launch a dupe ethically
• Dive into the first Australian judgment finding Aldi liable for copyright infringement on packaging

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Intellectual Property and Dupes

02:48 Understanding Copyright vs. Trademark

05:57 The Legal Landscape of Dupes in Makeup

08:51 Case Study: Aldi's Copyright Infringement

11:50 The Impact of Social Media on Dupes

15:04 Emotional Aspects of IP Infringement

17:43 Future of Dupes

 

Guest Spotlight - Susan Gatford

Susan is a Melbourne-based barrister who specialises in intellectual property disputes and commercial law. With qualifications as a trademark attorney, barrister and mediator, she has advised retail giants, start-ups and established labels on brand strategy, IP licensing and enforcement.

Connect: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-gatford-91820b31/

Barrister profile: https://www.vicbar.com.au/Profile?ID=23712

Resources Mentioned

• Federal Court judgment: APL v Aldi Australia (link)
• IP Australia guides on trademarks and designs
• ACCC consumer law overview

Support the show: https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode explores the evolving treatment of pets in Australian family law. Once seen purely as property, pets are now recognised for their emotional significance, leading to recent amendments of the Family Law Act 1975.  Through real-life case studies our hosts unpack how pets can become the centre of disputes, and talk about how the new legal frameworks will give greater clarity to how pet ownership will be determined by the Courts.

 

Get in contact with Svenson Barristers:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-svenson-2610b790/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/?viewAsMember=true

https://svensonbarristers.com.au/

 

 Key Takeaways

• Pets were traditionally classified as property in family law.
• Recent amendments now acknowledge the emotional attachment people have to their pets.
• The Roxy case showcased the emotional toll pets can have in separation disputes.
• Pets are increasingly being used as bargaining chips in family law battles.
• The Arena case confirmed that pets are not part of parenting orders.
• Manipulating pet ownership in legal disputes can cause serious emotional harm.
• New laws define companion animals and create specific ownership criteria.
• Emotional connection now plays a role in determining legal ownership.
• Custody disputes over pets are still not permitted as they are too legally complex, open ended and emotionally charged.
• These amendments provide a framework for more nuanced legal consideration.
  
  

Chapters
00:00 – Introduction to Family Law and Pets
02:55 – The Legal Status of Pets in Family Law
05:55 – Case Studies: Pets as Bargaining Chips
08:51 – Roxy's Case: Emotional Attachment vs. Property Rights
11:53 – The Arena Case: Pets in Parenting Proceedings
14:52 – Manipulation and Weaponization of Pets in Disputes
17:50 – New Amendments in Family Law Regarding Pets
20:56 – Defining Companion Animals in Legal Terms
23:44 – Criteria for Determining Pet Ownership
26:57 – Challenges in Custody Disputes for Pets
29:50 – Reactions to the New Amendments
32:53 – Conclusion: The Future of Pets in Family Law

Support the show: https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“90% of their customers did not have flood insurance”

In this episode, Anna Svenson, Director of Svenson Barristers, meets with Barrister, Michael Whitten KC to unpack how climate change and natural disasters are reshaping the insurance landscape. From the devastating LA fires in the US, to ex-tropical Cyclone Alfred closer to home, they explore why premiums are rising, how reinsurance and government schemes like the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool aim to help, and what the future holds for insurance affordability. They discuss the growing tension between increasing risk and consumers' ability to access coverage—and why underinsurance is becoming a national concern.

 

Get in contact with Svenson Barristers:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-svenson-2610b790/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/?viewAsMember=true

https://svensonbarristers.com.au/

 

Key Highlights:

• The LA fires highlighted a catastrophic gap between damage and insurance coverage.
• Ex-tropical Cyclone Alfred exposed vulnerabilities in Australia’s insurance framework.
• Climate change is fuelling the frequency and severity of natural disasters.
• 15% of Australians face premium stress, making coverage unaffordable.
• Reinsurance and government-backed pools are vital to managing risk.
• The FAIR Plan in California and Australia’s Cyclone Reinsurance Pool offer insights into insurance as a public good.
• Flood insurance remains disproportionately expensive compared to storm coverage.
• There's a growing disconnect between insurance as a financial product and its accessibility to everyday Australians.

• Many Australians remain underinsured or uninsured due to high costs.
• Future solutions must balance affordability, climate resilience, and consumer protection.

• "The tension is between climate change and consumer outcome."
  
  

Chapters:
00:00 – The Impact of Natural Disasters on Insurance
10:06 – Lessons from the LA Fires
12:44 – Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred and Its Aftermath
20:52 – The Rising Cost of Insurance
25:07 – Government Initiatives and Future Outlook

Support the show: https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Anna Svenson speaks with Andrew Kirkham AM RFD KC about the infamous Chamberlain case, a tragic story involving the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain, who was taken by a dingo while sleeping in a tent at Uluru in 1980. The conversation delves into the media's role in shaping public perception, the evidence presented during the trial, and the subsequent miscarriage of justice that led to Lindy Chamberlain's wrongful conviction. The discussion also covers the bombshell discovery of new evidence, the Royal Commission's findings on incorrect forensics, and the lasting impact of this case on the Australian legal system.

 

Get in contact with Svenson Barristers:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-svenson-2610b790/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/?viewAsMember=true

https://svensonbarristers.com.au/

Key Takeaways

• Media portrayal can heavily influence public perception and jury decisions.
• The absence of a body, motive, or confession complicates the prosecution's case.
• The role of forensic evidence in trials is critical but can be flawed.
• Public opinion can be swayed by sensationalised media coverage.
• The discovery of new evidence can lead to exoneration after wrongful convictions.
• How juries can be influenced by societal expectations of grief and behaviour of an accused.
• The legal process can be deeply affected by the actions of law enforcement
• The Royal Commission highlighted failures in the original investigation and trial.
• The case has led to reforms in forensic science practices in Australia.

Podcast edited and produced by: SESSION in PROGRESS

Chapters
00:00 The Chamberlain Case: A Tragic Beginning

03:09 The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception

06:04 Evidence and Inquests: The Path to Trial

09:12 Trial Dynamics: The Jury's Decision

11:54 The Aftermath: Discovering New Evidence

14:53 The Royal Commission and Its Findings

18:14 Legacy of the Chamberlain Case: Justice and Miscarriage

21:06 Reflections on a Miscarriage of Justice

Support the show: https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our very first episode of Brief Chats, host Anna Svenson sits down with barrister Nik Dragojlovic to unravel the gripping saga of Novak Djokovic's deportation from Australia amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The conversation delves into the timeline of events leading to the tennis icon’s visa cancellation, the intricate legal hurdles encountered, and the broader implications of the court's rulings. Beyond the legal complexities, the episode offers insight into the global spotlight on Djokovic’s case, exploring how his celebrity status and perceived stance on vaccination shaped public opinion and the legal process.

Nik also shares personal reflections on working alongside a player of Djokovic’s calibre, whose determination and resilience on the court mirrored his fight off it.

Get in contact with Nik:

https://svensonbarristers.com.au/barristers/nik-dragojlovic/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nik-dragojlovic/

Get in contact with Svenson Barristers:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-svenson-2610b790/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/?viewAsMember=true

https://svensonbarristers.com.au/

Key Takeaways

- The case of Novak Djokovic's deportation was unprecedented and complex.

- Public sentiment around vaccination influenced the legal proceedings. 

- Djokovic's legal team faced tight time constraints and high pressure.

- The initial visa cancellation was based on health and safety concerns.

- Procedural fairness was a key argument in the first court case.

- The minister's second decision to cancel Djokovic's visa was controversial.

- Judicial review is limited in scope compared to other legal challenges.

- The case attracted significant media attention and public interest.

- Working with Djokovic was a unique experience for his legal team.

 

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to the Case

01:59 The Events Leading to Deportation

06:13 Legal Challenges and Initial Responses

18:13 The First Court Decision

25:30 The Minister's Second Decision

31:18 Judicial Review and Its Implications

37:02 Final Court Ruling and Reactions

40:49 Public Interest and Media Coverage

41:43 Reflections on Novak Djokovic

Support the show: https://www.linkedin.com/company/svenson-barristers/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.