Elise Explains IPcast

What happens when a company copies the structure of a software system — but writes its own code?

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks one of the most important intellectual property cases in modern technology: Oracle v Google.

The dispute centred on Google’s use of Java APIs when developing Android, and raised a major legal question:

Can the structure of software systems be protected by copyright?

But this episode goes beyond the legal headlines.

Elise explains why this case matters for:

You’ll also learn why relying on “fair use” can be dangerous — particularly for Australian businesses operating under much narrower fair dealing rules.

A practical explanation of APIs and why they became central to the dispute.

The difference between:

A look at the commercial stakes and legal uncertainty surrounding the dispute.

Why Google ultimately succeeded in the US — and why that outcome doesn’t easily translate to Australia.

A critical distinction for Australian businesses:

Including:

If you’re building software or digital systems, ask yourself:

Elise Explains IP is a practical podcast for business owners, founders, creatives, and advisors who want to better understand intellectual property and business protection.

The focus is simple:

If you’re building software, digital products, systems, or scalable platforms — and you’re unsure where your intellectual property risks sit — you can book a strategy call using the link below.

www.elisesteegstra.com

Protecting your IP early is usually far easier than untangling it later.

Expanding your business internationally sounds like growth.

But from a trade mark perspective, it’s often where things start to unravel.

In this episode, recorded from London during the INTA Conference, Elise unpacks a common — and costly — issue: why so many businesses run into trade mark problems when they enter new markets.

The key takeaway?

You may discover that your brand is already registered in another country — even if you’ve been using it for years in your home market.

In many jurisdictions, priority is based on filing date, not use.

Launching into a new market without clearance can trigger enforcement action from existing rights holders.

This can lead to:

A name that works in one country may be:

This leaves you exposed without enforceable rights.

Common issues include:

Trade mark issues don’t stay “legal problems.”

They quickly become commercial problems, affecting:

If you’re planning to expand internationally:

Consider future markets early — even if expansion is 12–24 months away.

Undertake trade mark searches in your target country before launching.

Focus protection on where you:

Ensure the correct entity owns the IP — particularly across group structures.

This is not just a legal step — it’s part of your growth strategy.

Attending the INTA Conference in London highlights a consistent global theme:

Most trade mark disputes don’t arise because businesses act recklessly —

Trade mark protection is granted country by country.

There is no single “worldwide” trade mark.

International systems like the Madrid Protocol can streamline filings — but they do not eliminate the need for jurisdiction-specific strategy.

If international expansion is on your horizon, now is the time to ask:

Will your brand actually work in the markets you want to enter?

Fixing issues early is strategic.

If you’d like tailored advice on protecting your brand as you scale, you can book a strategy call:

🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com

If you found this episode helpful, share it with a business owner or advisor who is thinking about expanding internationally.

Because the earlier this is understood, the easier it is to get right.

Who Really Owns Your Trade Mark? Lessons from Black Star Pastry v Richards

You can build a strong brand, file a trade mark… and still not legally own it.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks the recent Federal Court decision in Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383 — and why it highlights one of the most critical (and commonly misunderstood) issues in trade mark law:

Ownership at the time of filing

With a particular focus on the “Blackstar Coffee” trade mark, this episode explores what happens when a mark is filed in the name of one individual, despite being used in a broader business involving multiple parties.

The takeaway is simple — but often overlooked:

It’s not enough to file a trade mark. It needs to be filed in the right name.

This case highlights a familiar scenario:

The result?

👉 A disconnect between legal ownership (on the register) and commercial reality (how the brand operates)

This creates uncertainty, risk, and potential disputes — particularly if relationships change.

Getting trade mark ownership wrong can lead to:

In practical terms:

Your business may not actually own its most valuable asset — its brand

If you’re filing (or have filed) a trade mark, consider:

In most cases, the company should own the trade mark.

The entity that controls and commercialises the brand should typically be the registered owner.

If yes:

Quick or DIY filings often lead to ownership issues later.

Trade marks should sit within your:

If you’re unsure whether your trade marks are owned by the right entity — or you’re setting things up properly from the start — it’s worth getting clarity early.

👉 Book a strategy call:

Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383

If you know a founder, creative, or advisor who’s building a brand — this is an important one to share.

Because most trade mark issues don’t come from failing to file…

They come from filing in the wrong name.

World IP Day Special: IP and Sports — Ready, Set, Innovate!

What do the Olympics, Nike, athlete sponsorships, and sports technology all have in common?

They’re powered by intellectual property.

In this World IP Day special, we unpack this year’s theme — “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!” — and explore how sport provides one of the clearest real-world examples of how IP creates value, protects brands, and drives revenue.

This episode breaks down how IP operates behind the scenes in sport — and, more importantly, what business owners can learn from it.

Because whether you’re building a brand, launching a product, or scaling a business, the same principles apply.

Behind every team, event, and broadcast is a framework of trade marks, copyright, and licensing rights that make commercialisation possible.

Merchandise, sponsorships, and media rights only work because ownership is clear and enforceable.

From wearable tech to performance data, sport continues to generate IP that becomes new revenue streams.

Names, images, and reputations are commercial assets that need to be carefully managed and protected.

Major sporting bodies actively enforce their rights — because unmanaged IP quickly loses value.

If your brand, product, or content disappeared tomorrow:

If you want to make sure your business is properly protected — or you’re scaling and need to get your structure and IP right — you can book a strategy call:

🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com

World Intellectual Property Day is celebrated annually on 26 April and highlights the role IP plays in encouraging innovation and creativity.

The 2026 theme:

If you found this episode useful, share it with a business owner, founder, or advisor who is building something worth protecting.

Choosing a business name feels like a creative decision — but legally, it’s one of the most important strategic choices you’ll make.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack the most common trade mark mistakes startups make, and why getting this wrong early can lead to expensive rebrands, lost opportunities, and unnecessary legal risk.

Through practical examples and real-world scenarios, you’ll learn how to protect your brand properly from day one — and avoid building a business around a name you don’t actually own.

We walk through the example of a startup building a brand under a name that:

…resulting in exposure to rebranding, legal risk, and growth limitations.

It’s a situation I see regularly — and one that is almost always preventable.

If you’re building or growing a business:

If you’d like clarity on whether your brand is actually protected — or want to get it right before you launch — you can book a strategy call:

🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com

If you found this episode helpful:

When you “buy” software, do you actually own it?

In most cases, the answer is no.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we break down software licensing basics in plain English — what a licence really is, why it matters for your business, and the risks that often get overlooked.

Because software isn’t just a tool — it’s infrastructure. And if you don’t understand your rights, you may not be in control of your own systems.

Many businesses invest heavily in custom-built platforms — CRMs, booking systems, or internal tools — only to discover later that they don’t own the underlying IP.

If the relationship with the developer breaks down, the business can be left without control over systems they rely on every day.

If you review nothing else, focus on:

Software sits at the centre of most modern businesses — from customer data to financial systems.

If you don’t control your access to those systems, you may not fully control your business.

If you’d like help reviewing your software arrangements or ensuring your business is properly protected:

Book a strategy call: https://www.elisesteegstra.com

If you found this helpful, share it with a business owner or advisor — especially anyone investing in software or building custom systems.

Most business owners assume their website or app is “theirs.”

But in reality, ownership of what you’ve built is often fragmented — spread across developers, designers, copywriters, and third-party platforms.

In this episode, Elise breaks down how intellectual property actually works in websites and apps, where businesses commonly get caught out, and what to fix before it impacts growth, control, or a future sale.

This is a practical guide to understanding what you own, what you’re licensing, and how to properly secure your digital assets.

If you have (or are building) a website or app:

1. Put proper agreements in place

2. Confirm ownership sits with your business entity

3. Understand what you’re licensing

4. Keep records and access

5. Protect your brand

A business builds an app using external developers and creatives.

A few years later, they:

During due diligence, it becomes clear they don’t fully own:

The result? Delays, renegotiation — or a lost deal.

Your website or app is often a core business asset.

If you don’t control the IP:

If you’re unsure whether your website or app IP is properly structured, now is the time to review it.

Book a strategy call:

If this episode was helpful, share it with a business owner or founder building something online.

And don’t forget to follow Elise Explains IP for practical, real-world guidance on protecting your business.

Episode Title: Why Cadbury Doesn’t Own the Colour Purple (And Why Colour Trade Marks Are So Hard)

Can a business really “own” a colour?

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack Cadbury’s long-running attempts to protect its iconic purple packaging — and why those efforts have had mixed success in Australia and internationally.

Using real cases, including the dispute with Darrell Lea and Cadbury’s failed UK registration, this episode explains why colour trade marks are some of the hardest rights to secure.

Cadbury’s use of purple

The Australian dispute with Darrell Lea

The UK trade mark attempt

Why colour trade marks are difficult

Australia

United Kingdom / Europe

Many businesses assume that consistent use of colours, packaging, or design elements automatically creates legal ownership.

The Cadbury example shows that:

If you’d like help protecting your brand or understanding what elements of your business can actually be registered as trade marks, you can learn more here:

👉 www.elisesteegstra.com

Elise Explains IP is a podcast for business owners, founders, and advisors who want to understand how intellectual property actually works in practice — and how to protect what they’re building before problems arise.

Episode: Social Media IP Risks for Brands

Social media has become one of the most powerful tools for building a brand. But it also introduces a range of intellectual property risks that many businesses overlook.

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise discusses the most common IP and brand protection risks businesses face on social media — particularly when marketing teams, agencies, influencers and customers are all using the brand in different ways.

From inconsistent use of trade marks to influencer behaviour that can damage brand reputation, this episode explores how quickly brand control can be lost online — and what businesses can do to manage those risks.

Whether you're a business owner, marketer, or advisor, understanding these issues can help ensure your brand remains legally strong and commercially valuable as it grows online.

Elise explains:

Why social media creates unique intellectual property risks for brands

How inconsistent use of brand names and logos can weaken trade mark protection

The risks associated with influencers using brand assets incorrectly

How influencer behaviour can impact brand reputation

Why user-generated content can create copyright issues

How hashtags and social media trends can unintentionally reshape a brand

Practical steps businesses can take to protect their IP online

When marketing teams, agencies, and influencers all use the brand differently — abbreviations, altered logos, or modified taglines — it can weaken trade mark protection and create confusion about the brand itself.

Influencers often create their own visual content, which can result in:

altered logos

modified brand colours

cropped or stylised trade marks

branding combined with other products

Without clear guidelines, this can dilute the brand or create legal issues.

Influencers effectively act as public ambassadors for the brand. Controversial or inappropriate behaviour can quickly create reputational damage for the business associated with them.

Once content is posted online, it can easily be:

shared

copied

modified

repurposed

Businesses may lose control over how their IP appears across social platforms.

Customer photos, videos and reviews are valuable marketing tools — but reposting them can raise copyright and permission issues if the business does not have clear rights to reuse that content.

Campaign hashtags can sometimes become more widely used than the trade mark itself, creating confusion about the brand and potentially weakening trade mark protection.

To reduce social media IP risks, businesses should consider:

Creating clear social media brand guidelines

Including IP and brand use terms in influencer agreements

Monitoring online use of brand names, logos and hashtags

Obtaining permission before reusing user-generated content

Maintaining consistent use of registered trade marks

Protecting a brand online requires ongoing management, not just registration of trade marks.

For more insights on protecting your intellectual property and building legally strong brands, visit:

https://www.elisesteegstra.com

Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property issues in a clear and practical way for business owners, founders, advisors and professionals.

Each episode focuses on real-world brand, trade mark and IP issues that affect growing businesses — and how to manage them strategically.

The Katy Perry Trade Mark Case: What the High Court Actually Decided

Episode: Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5

In this episode of Elise Explains IP, we unpack the High Court of Australia’s long-awaited decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 — widely known as the Katy Perry trade mark case.

The dispute involved an Australian fashion designer who registered the trade mark “Katie Perry” for clothing, and the global pop star Katy Perry, whose companies sold merchandise under the same name.

After years of litigation and conflicting outcomes in the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court, the High Court has now clarified how trade mark reputation and priority dates interact under Australian law.

The key takeaway: trade mark rights are assessed based on the position at the priority date — not with hindsight after someone becomes famous.

This decision reinforces the importance of early trade mark filings, evidence of reputation, and careful brand strategy.

In this episode we discuss:

The background to the Katy Perry trade mark dispute

Why the Australian designer registered “Katie Perry” as a clothing trade mark

How Katy Perry’s companies challenged the validity of that trade mark

Why the Full Federal Court cancelled the registration

How the High Court reversed that decision

Why the 2008 priority date became the central issue in the case

What businesses should learn about trade mark timing and reputation

The High Court emphasised that the validity of a trade mark must be assessed at the time the application is filed.

In this case, that meant asking whether Katy Perry had sufficient reputation in Australia in September 2008 to make the “Katie Perry” clothing mark deceptive or confusing.

The Court held that the respondents did not prove that level of reputation at that time.

Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), a trade mark can be cancelled if its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion because of an earlier reputation.

However, reputation must be proven with clear evidence at the relevant date.

Later fame cannot be used to retrospectively invalidate a trade mark.

The High Court found that the Full Federal Court had incorrectly concluded that the trade mark should be cancelled.

Instead, the evidence did not establish that the singer’s reputation in Australia at the relevant time was strong enough to invalidate the registration.

As a result, the High Court allowed Taylor’s appeal and restored the validity of the “Katie Perry” trade mark.

Although this case involved a global celebrity, the lessons apply to any business building a brand.

1. File trade marks early

The earlier you file, the earlier your priority date is locked in — and that can be critical in disputes.

2. Reputation must be proven

If you want to challenge a trade mark based on reputation, you need clear evidence of that reputation at the relevant time.

3. Courts won’t apply hindsight

Later success or fame doesn’t change the legal position that existed when a trade mark was filed.

4. Brand strategy is risk management

Choosing a name isn’t just a creative decision — it’s also a legal and strategic one.

Case: Taylor v Killer Queen LLC

Key legislation discussed:

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

Section 60 – Reputation as a ground for opposing registration

Section 88 – Rectification of the trade mark register

High Court decision:

High Court judgment summary:

Elise Explains IP breaks down intellectual property law into clear, practical insights for:

business owners

founders and entrepreneurs

financial advisors and professional advisers

brand owners and creators

The focus is on helping businesses understand risk, protect their brands, and build valuable intellectual property assets.

Follow Elise Explains IP on your favourite podcast platform and share the episode with someone building a brand or launching a business.