Elise Explains IPcast

What happens when the version of a song you remember isn’t the version on Spotify?

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise digs into the surprisingly important difference between owning a physical copy of music, film or television and having access to the same content through a streaming service.

Starting with an old Triple J Hottest 100 CD containing a different version of Mindless Drug Hoover’s The Reefer Song from the version now available on streaming platforms, Elise explores how copyright can subsist separately in musical works and sound recordings — and why “the same song” may not always mean the same recording.

The episode also looks at:

Streaming offers extraordinary convenience and access. But when you subscribe to a streaming service, you generally don’t own the music or films in its catalogue — you have access for as long as the relevant rights and licences permit it.

Sometimes an old CD, DVD, film print or home recording isn’t just nostalgic clutter.

Sometimes it is the archive.

SBS On Demand – why content disappears

Dogma – current Australian availability

Doctor Who – why the early episodes went missing

Doctor Who – the missing episodes and their recovery

The Daleks’ Master Plan – two episodes recovered in 2026

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

What does a cup of bubble tea have in common with a Louis Vuitton handbag? A four petal flower sparked a trade mark dispute that offers useful lessons for anyone building a brand.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise Steegstra examines Louis Vuitton’s case against Chinese tea chain Molly Tea and explains why “we’re in different industries” may be an incomplete answer to a branding concern.

The episode explores:

What trade mark protection means for a particular floral design.

Why Louis Vuitton’s registrations extended beyond handbags.

How customers might assume a collaboration, even when they recognise the businesses as separate.

When a decorative symbol also functions as a trade mark.

Why branding problems become more expensive as a business grows.

Four practical checks before rolling out a new logo.

The case discussed is a first instance Chinese judgment. Molly Tea said it intended to appeal, and the episode does not present that decision as the final outcome.

Practical takeaway: Check your visual identity as carefully as your business name, before investing in packaging, signage and merchandise.

Free resource: Use the IP Audit tool to identify questions about your business’s intellectual property.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Naming your business after yourself feels natural, especially when you're a sole trader starting out. But from an IP and business perspective, it can quietly create problems down the track — and this episode unpacks exactly why.

In this episode, Elise covers:

Key takeaway

Your business name is a decision about the future of the business, not just a description of who's running it today. If you're building something you might one day sell, scale, or hand over, it's worth asking early whether the brand can exist without you personally delivering it.

Resources mentioned

Free IP Risk and Ownership Audit at www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit , and a Strategy Call booking for anyone already thinking about a sale, succession, or bringing in a partner.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Back in Episode 7, we covered the trial decision in Aldi v Hampden — the case about Aldi's MAMIA baby snack packaging and its similarities to Hampden's BABY BELLIES, LITTLE BELLIES and MIGHTY BELLIES range. This episode covers what happened next: the Full Federal Court appeal, and why it matters for anyone who's ever briefed a designer to “get inspired by” a competitor.

At trial, the result was mixed — three of Aldi's eleven products (the “puffs” range) were found to infringe Hampden's copyright, the other eight weren't. Both sides appealed. On appeal, the Full Court found the trial judge's whole method had a problem: reducing packaging down to a checklist of abstract “design elements” (present or absent) isn't how copyright infringement is properly assessed. It requires a genuine side-by-side comparison of the actual works, and proper weight given to how original the copied elements really are.

Hampden's own case didn't help matters either — its argument leaned on a shared “look and feel” across all nine of its designs, rather than comparing specific works pair by pair. The Full Court was clear: copyright protects a particular work, not a style or vibe running across a whole range.

The Full Court redid the infringement analysis properly, work by work. The puffs findings largely held up, and some of the previously “not infringing” products were brought into the infringing column too — partly because Hampden had narrowed its own comparator works, which the Court suggested may have left some stronger arguments on the table. On damages, Aldi's own paper trail — the instruction to “follow the architecture,” the internal note that a draft was “too close to our benchmark” — was central to the finding that its conduct was flagrant enough to justify additional damages.

This episode is general information, not legal advice — if you want help with your own branding or packaging IP, book a Strategy Call any time.

If you've launched a product before protecting its design, you may have already lost your chance to register it — not made it harder, lost it, permanently. That timing trap is one of the biggest reasons product businesses miss out on one of the most useful, and most underused, IP rights available to them.

In this episode, Elise breaks down registered designs — what they protect, why they matter commercially, and why timing is everything.

She covers:

Design protection is a pre-launch decision, not a reactive one. If you're developing a new product or packaging, ask the design-registration question before you launch — not after.

Not sure whether your product's design is protected — or protectable? Run the free IP Risk and Ownership Audit on Elise's website, or book a Strategy Call.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Can one country secure trade mark rights over the name of a product that is also legitimately produced somewhere else?

India’s agricultural export authority, APEDA, sought to register BASMATI as a certification trade mark in Australia. The proposed mark was intended to identify Basmati rice grown in India and certified under APEDA’s standards.

There was, however, a significant complication: Basmati rice is also grown in Pakistan.

The Federal Court found that Australian consumers understand Basmati primarily as a type of aromatic, long-grain rice grown in both India and Pakistan—not as an indication that the rice has been certified by an Indian authority.

In this episode, Elise explains why the BASMATI word mark was refused and compares the decision with the recent PISCO case, where Peru successfully registered PISCO as a certification trade mark.

The two cases applied the same legal principles but produced opposite results. The difference came down to the evidence and what the names actually communicate to Australian consumers.

Elise discusses:

In the Pisco case, the evidence supported the conclusion that Australian consumers were likely to understand PISCO as referring to a location or region in Peru from which the beverage originated.

In the Basmati case, the evidence showed that Australian consumers understood BASMATI as the name of a type of rice grown in both India and Pakistan.

Pakistani producers therefore had a legitimate need to use the word Basmati for their own rice, even though that rice had not been certified by APEDA.

A product may have a genuine connection with a region, recognised characteristics and significant cultural or commercial importance without its name necessarily being registrable as a certification trade mark in Australia.

International recognition as a geographical indication does not guarantee Australian registration. The critical questions include:

Authenticity matters—but authenticity and registrability are not the same thing.

Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125

Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791

Not sure whether your business owns and protects its important intellectual property?

Use Elise’s online IP Risk and Ownership Audit to identify potential gaps involving your trade marks, copyright, branding, ownership arrangements and commercial agreements:

www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit

If the audit identifies an issue—or you are developing a certification scheme, protecting a regional product or considering whether a valuable name can be registered—you can also book an IP Strategy Call at:

www.elisesteegstra.com

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Registering a trade mark is an important step—but it does not mean IP Australia will monitor the market or automatically stop other businesses from adopting a similar brand.

Following on from the BROWN NOSE DAY case, this episode looks at what happens after registration. The Full Federal Court confirmed in Registrar of Trade Marks v National Cancer Foundation Limited [2026] FCAFC 95 that the Registrar’s post-registration revocation power is exceptional. It is not a substitute for opposing a trade mark during the proper opposition period.

The practical lesson is simple: if you want to protect your brand, you need a system for detecting potentially conflicting applications and real-world use before the problem becomes harder—and more expensive—to resolve.

In this episode, Elise explains how businesses can monitor their trade marks, how the IP Australia opposition process works and what options may be available when a possible infringement is discovered.

Why registering a trade mark does not create an automatic monitoring service

The difference between monitoring the Trade Marks Register and monitoring the marketplace

What to watch for beyond exact copies of your brand

How to search for similar names, misspellings, logos and related goods or services

Using trade mark watching services, search alerts, social media, domain records and online marketplaces

Why ASIC business name registration does not give the same rights as trade mark registration

The key stages in an IP Australia trade mark opposition and the two-month window for filing a Notice of Intention to Oppose

The difference between opposing an application and pursuing trade mark infringement

What evidence to preserve when you discover possible infringement

Options including an informal approach, a letter of demand, negotiated undertakings, platform complaints, domain name proceedings, Australian Border Force notices and court action

Why not every similar mark requires a legal fight

How to create a practical, proportionate monitoring plan for your business

Once a trade mark application is accepted, it is advertised so third parties have an opportunity to oppose it. A person wishing to challenge the application generally needs to file a Notice of Intention to Oppose within two months after acceptance is advertised.

The opponent must then file a Statement of Grounds and Particulars identifying the legal grounds relied upon and the facts supporting them. If the applicant defends the application, the matter may proceed through evidence and a hearing before an IP Australia hearing officer.

Some disputes are resolved commercially—for example, by narrowing the goods or services, changing the proposed brand or negotiating an appropriate coexistence arrangement.

An opposition determines whether the application should be registered. If the applicant is already using the mark, a separate enforcement strategy may also be required.

A useful system does not need to involve watching every corner of the internet every day. It should reflect the value of the brand and where infringement is most likely to occur.

Start by:

Identifying your core business names, product names, logos, taglines and distinctive packaging.

Recording what is registered, who owns it, the relevant goods and services, countries and renewal dates.

Selecting the registers, search engines, domains, social platforms and marketplaces that matter to your business.

Giving one person responsibility for reviewing alerts and recording deadlines.

Creating a response process so evidence is preserved and each issue is assessed consistently.

Registration gives you the legal right. Monitoring gives you the opportunity to protect it at the right time.

Registrar of Trade Marks v National Cancer Foundation Limited [2026] FCAFC 95—the BROWN NOSE DAY trade mark case.

View the Federal Court online case file

Search Australian trade marks

IP Australia: How to challenge someone else’s IP

IP Australia trade mark opposition flow chart

Australian Border Force: Notices of Objection

Not sure whether your important brands and other intellectual property are properly identified, owned and protected?

Complete the free IP Risk and Ownership Audit to identify potential gaps in your business.

For further information or to book an IP Strategy Call, visit www.elisesteegstra.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

What happens when IP Australia registers a trade mark—and then changes its mind?

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack the wonderfully unusual dispute between BROWN NOSE DAY and the earlier RED NOSE DAY trade marks.

Both names use a colour followed by the words NOSE DAY. Both relate to charitable fundraising. At first sniff, they may appear uncomfortably close.

However, the Full Federal Court concluded that the marks were not deceptively similar. The familiar expression “brown nose” gave BROWN NOSE DAY its own distinct meaning and created a different overall impression from RED NOSE DAY.

The decision also considers an important and relatively unusual issue: when the Registrar of Trade Marks can revoke a trade mark after it has already been registered.

Elise explains:

Registrar of Trade Marks v National Cancer Foundation Limited [2026] FCAFC 95.

The Full Federal Court dismissed the Registrar’s appeal and allowed the BROWN NOSE DAY registration to remain.

The Court found that BROWN NOSE DAY was not deceptively similar to the earlier RED NOSE DAY marks. Consumers were likely to understand “brown nose” as a familiar expression, rather than viewing the name as simply another colour in a series of NOSE DAY campaigns.

The decision also confirms that the Registrar’s post-registration revocation power can extend to errors of judgment. However, determining whether a registration was legally wrong and deciding whether revocation would be reasonable are separate questions.

You can access the Federal Court’s online case file.

A trade mark comparison involves more than counting the words two names have in common. The real question is the overall impression each mark creates for an ordinary consumer who may have only an imperfect recollection of the earlier mark.

Before adopting a new brand:

Registration remains an enormously valuable form of protection, but it is not a substitute for careful clearance work and an ongoing brand protection strategy.

Sometimes a small change will not be enough to avoid confusion. At other times, one carefully chosen word completely changes the scent of the mark.

If you are developing a new brand, preparing to file a trade mark application or concerned about a similar name appearing in the market, you can book an IP Strategy Call with Elise at elisesteegstra.com.

Listen to the episode and follow Elise Explains IP for practical explanations of the intellectual property issues affecting businesses, founders and creatives.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Every day, more than three billion images are uploaded and shared online. According to today's guest, as many as 80–85% are used without a licence.

So how can photographers, designers, content creators and businesses possibly keep track of where their images end up? And what does copyright enforcement look like in a world where AI can create, modify and distribute content in seconds?

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, I'm joined by Marcus Schmitt, Founder and CEO of the MEDIA-IDENT Group, the company behind COPYTRACK and BRANDS-IDENT. Marcus shares how AI is transforming copyright enforcement, why so many businesses unknowingly infringe copyright, and what creators can do to better protect their intellectual property.

Whether you're a photographer, business owner, marketer or simply someone who creates original content, this episode offers practical insights into one of the fastest-moving areas of intellectual property law.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that if an image appears in a Google search, it's free to use. It isn't. Copyright continues to apply regardless of how easily an image can be found online.

Marcus explains that monitoring intellectual property is becoming just as important as obtaining it in the first place. Technology now allows copyright owners to identify unauthorised uses of their work at a scale that simply wasn't possible a decade ago.

We also discuss the impact AI is having on photographers and other creators, with AI-generated content rapidly changing the stock image market and creating new challenges around ownership, licensing and enforcement.

Perhaps most importantly, Marcus reminds us that protecting intellectual property isn't only about recovering compensation. Sometimes it's about protecting your reputation, preserving the value of your creative work, and maintaining control over how your content is used.

MEDIA-IDENT Group

https://mediaident.com

COPY-IDENT

BRANDS-IDENT

SOURCE-IDENT

Marcus Schmitt is the Founder and CEO of the MEDIA-IDENT Group, a Berlin-based legal technology company specialising in AI-powered copyright enforcement, brand protection and digital content provenance.

Since founding the business in 2015, Marcus has grown the company organically into a global operation that manages more than 100,000 copyright enforcement matters every month and monitors over 1.5 million image uses across more than 200 countries.

🌐 Website: https://www.elisesteegstra.com

📅 Book an IP Strategy Call: https://www.elisesteegstra.com

🎙️ Subscribe to Elise Explains IP for practical conversations about intellectual property, business protection and the legal issues that matter to business owners.

Disclaimer: The information discussed in this episode is general information only and is not legal advice. If you need advice about your own circumstances, you should obtain professional legal advice.

Artificial intelligence has become an everyday marketing tool. Businesses are using AI to write website copy, create social media content, generate logos, design images and even produce videos in a matter of minutes.

But while AI makes content creation faster than ever, it also raises important intellectual property questions that many business owners haven't considered.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise explores the hidden IP risks that can arise when using AI for marketing and explains why "the AI created it" doesn't necessarily mean you're free to use or own it.

You'll learn why AI-generated content can present challenges around copyright ownership, how AI outputs can unintentionally resemble existing creative works, and why trade mark searches are still essential before launching a new brand or logo. Elise also discusses the risks of uploading confidential business information into AI platforms and why every business should have clear guidelines around how employees use AI.

Whether you're using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Midjourney, Canva AI, Adobe Firefly or another AI platform, understanding these risks can help you avoid costly disputes while making the most of this rapidly evolving technology.

AI is an incredibly powerful marketing assistant, but it isn't a substitute for good intellectual property strategy. The businesses that will benefit most from AI are those that combine its efficiency with sensible legal and commercial risk management.

Download Elise's free IP Audit Checklist to identify the intellectual property your business already owns and uncover opportunities to better protect it.

Book an IP Strategy Call if you'd like tailored advice about protecting your brand, content, software or other intellectual property while adopting AI in your business.

Website: https://www.elisesteegstra.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elisesteegstra/

Podcast: Elise Explains IP

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with another business owner who is using AI in their marketing. It helps more people understand how intellectual property can become one of their business's most valuable assets.

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.