What is often overlooked, however, is that collaborating with inventors located in other countries, can trigger mandatory foreign filing licence requirements before a first patent application is filed in Australia. Failure to address these requirements at the outset can have serious and irreversible consequences for patent rights.

Australia Has No Foreign Filing Licence Requirement – But Your Collaborators Do

Australian patent law does not impose a foreign filing licence requirement. An Australian company can generally file its first patent application anywhere in the world without government approval (although there are exceptions when it comes to national security related technologies).

Many countries, however, take a quite different approach, requiring either that the patent application be first filed in that country, or that a Foreign Filing Licence be obtained from the relevant authority in that country.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has published a list[1] of such counties which include, notably, the United States (another significant collaboration partner), China and India. Madderns has published an article[2] focussing on the foreign filing licence requirements of the United States.

China and India both impose pre‑filing approval requirements designed to protect national security and sensitive technologies. These rules can apply even where the applicant is an Australian company and even where the first patent application is intended to be filed in Australia.

Collaborations with Chinese Inventors

Under Chinese patent law, if the substantive technical content of an invention is developed in China, a confidentiality examination (commonly referred to as a foreign filing licence) must be obtained from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) before filing a patent application outside China.

Critically, the nationality or residence of the applicant is irrelevant. If China‑based inventors contributed to developing the invention in China, an Australian‑first filing without prior Chinese clearance can permanently bar patent protection in China.

In practical terms, this means that an Australian company collaborating with engineers or researchers working in China must assess whether a Chinese foreign filing licence is required before filing an Australian provisional or complete patent application.

Collaborations with Indian Inventors

India imposes an even broader rule. Under Section 39 of the Indian Patents Act, any person resident in India must obtain prior permission from the Indian Patent Office before filing a first patent application outside India.

This requirement is based on residency, not nationality or location. An Indian engineer working for an Australian company may still be considered resident in India for patent law purposes, even if they spend time overseas. If a resident Indian inventor is named on the application, an Australian‑first filing without an Indian foreign filing licence can result in criminal penalties and loss of Indian patent rights.

Why This Matters for Australian Businesses

Foreign filing licence issues are not mere procedural technicalities. Non‑compliance can lead to:

• permanent loss of patent rights in China or India;
• invalidation of later‑filed patents in those countries; and
• regulatory or criminal consequences for inventors.

Because these rules apply before the first filing anywhere in the world, the risk often arises at the Australian provisional stage—long before international filings are contemplated.

Obtaining a foreign filing licence in these countries can take up to 6 weeks (although can be less than a week), and require at least a rough draft of the patent specification intended to be filed in Australia, and so it is important to plan this process early, particularly if there is a hard filing deadline (for example imminent disclosure).

Practical Takeaway

Australian companies should treat foreign filing licences as a front‑end patent strategy issue, not a downstream formality. Before filing a first patent application in Australia, companies should always ask:

• Where was the invention developed?
• Where are the inventors resident?
• Are any inventors located in China or India?

Early identification of these issues, combined with timely foreign filing licence applications where required, can prevent costly mistakes and preserve global patent rights.

Madderns is experienced in identifying the need for, and obtaining, Foreign Filig Licences. If you think that your activities might trigger the requirements, feel free to reach out to a Madderns attorney for assistance.

1.      WIPO list of countries requiring a foreign filing licence – https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/texts/nat_sec

2.      Madderns article on US foreign filing licence requirements – https://madderns.com.au/retroactive-foreign-filing-licences/

The post Foreign Filing Licences: A Critical Patent Trap for Australian R&D Collaborations with China and India appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

How do you prove that you’re using the mark in the US?

By signing a declaration confirming that you’re still using the trade mark in commerce in the US, for the particular goods/services your registration covers, and filing a copy with the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office.

The declaration must include at least one example (called a “specimen”) showing how the mark is used in the US. The examples (specimens) you provide must show a clear connection between the registered trade mark and the particular goods/services your registration covers.

Some acceptable examples may be:

• for a registration that covers wine in class 33 – an actual photo of a wine bottle showing the trade mark on the label, or a photo of point-of-sale displays
• for a registration that covers perfumes in class 3 – a photo of the perfume packaging that includes the trade mark and clearly identifies the product inside
• for a registration that covers a range of software as a service (SaaS) services in class 42 – a screenshot of a webpage where the trade mark is displayed in connection with the software services, together with information about the services and how customers can access or purchase them.

One very important tip – carefully review your registered goods/services before preparing the declaration. If you’re no longer selling certain goods/services in the US, these goods/services should be deleted from your registration. If you claim use but can’t then provide acceptable proof, those goods/services may be removed from the registration, and there may also be other penalties.

When do you need to file evidence showing that you’re using the mark in the US?

For a national US registration, the obligation to prove use in the US first arises 5-6 years after registration. After that, you will need to file proof of use every time the mark is due for renewal, i.e. every 10 years.  For a registration filed through the International “Madrid Protocol” system, proof of use first needs to be filed 5-6 years after registration in the US, and then again 9-10 years after registration, and then every 10 years after that.

The key takeaway

Unlike in Australia, maintaining a US trade mark registration requires ongoing proof that the trade mark is being used in the US.

Once your mark is registered, monitor future of proof of use deadlines carefully. If your plans for launching your product in the US market are delayed after registering your trade mark, consider whether you will be able to prove use when the first deadline arises. If you can’t, you may want to think about re-filing a new application for the same trade mark before your current registration lapses.

The post Maintaining a trade mark registration in the US: A guide for Australian businesses appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

A business may own a stylised mark. It may have used that mark for many years. It may even be known in the market by the words appearing in that mark. But if those words are descriptive, the words alone may still fail under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act).

That is exactly what happened in Mobile Skips.

What happened in this case?

Mobile Skips sought to register the plain word mark ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ for services relating to skip bin hire and waste collection.

The Applicant already owned three composite trade mark registrations incorporating the words ‘Mobile Skips’. Those registrations were not for the words alone. They included stylisation, colour, chevrons and other visual elements: Search Results | IP Australia | Trade Mark Search

The Registrar refused the plain word mark application under s 41 of the Act, on the basis that ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ was not capable of distinguishing the Applicant’s services from the services of other traders.

Mobile Skips appealed under s 35 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed.

Why did the mark fail?

Section 41(1) of the Act provides that an application must be rejected if the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services from those of other persons.

That inquiry is tied to the essential function of a trade mark under s 17 of the Act, namely to distinguish one trader’s goods or services from those of others.

The Court considered whether ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ was inherently adapted to distinguish, as required by s 41(3) of the Act. In doing so, the Court applied the familiar principles from Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 and Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (2014) 254 CLR 337.

The key question was whether other traders, acting honestly, would have a legitimate desire to use the same or similar words to describe their own services.

The answer was yes.

The words ‘mobile’ and ‘skips’, used together, conveyed the idea of skips that are mobile, movable or trailerable. That meaning was directly connected with the services at issue. The words were not allusive or suggestive. They described the offering.

That meant that ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ did not do enough work as a trade mark.

The logo did not save the words

This is the central lesson, in my opinion, for brand owners.

A composite logo mark may be registrable because of its overall impression. Colour, layout, stylisation, device elements and graphic features may together create a distinctive mark.

But that does not mean the words inside the logo are separately registrable. A logo registration is not a backdoor monopoly over descriptive words.

In Mobile Skips, once the chevrons, colours and stylisation were stripped away, what remained was a descriptive expression. The Applicant could not rely on the distinctiveness of its composite marks to rescue the plain word mark.

Long use was not enough

The Applicant also relied on its use of the mark over approximately 16 years, together with evidence of trading history and market presence.

However, acquired distinctiveness is not established by use alone.

For a descriptive sign, the evidence must show that the sign applied for has, because of use, come to distinguish the applicant’s services as a trade mark. It is not enough to show that the business is successful, that consumers have encountered the words, or that the words appear somewhere in the applicant’s branding.

The difficulty for Mobile Skips was that much of the evidence showed use of composite device marks, not use of ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ as a plain word mark.

Use of a logo may, in some cases, support acquired distinctiveness in the words. But it will not automatically do so. The evidence must show that consumers see the words themselves as the badge of origin.

Website use, domain name use, traffic data and online recognition may be relevant, but they are not a substitute for evidence that the words function as a trade mark.

A disclaimer was not the answer

Mobile Skips also sought to rely on s 74 of the Act.

In practical terms, it wanted ‘MOBILE SKIPS’ to proceed to registration with a disclaimer. That is, the Applicant sought to address the descriptiveness concern by accepting that it would not have exclusive rights in particular descriptive components of the mark, such as ‘mobile’ or ‘skips’, separately.

The difficulty was that this did not answer the s 41 objection.

A disclaimer may be appropriate where an otherwise registrable mark contains a descriptive or non-distinctive element. It can make clear that the owner does not obtain exclusive rights in that element by itself.

But a disclaimer does not make an otherwise unregistrable mark registrable.

In Mobile Skips, the problem was not that a distinctive mark contained one descriptive component that could be carved out. The problem was that the whole mark applied for, ‘MOBILE SKIPS’, was descriptive of the services and lacked capacity to distinguish.

There was no distinctive remainder to preserve.

That is why s 74 could not assist. It could not be used to sidestep the threshold requirement in s 41 of the Act.

For brand owners, the point is important: a disclaimer can limit the scope of rights in a registrable mark. It cannot create distinctiveness where the mark itself does not have it.

Key takeaways for brand owners

The decision is a warning against assuming that commercial recognition equals legal distinctiveness.

For brand owners, the practical takeaways are clear.

1. File the word mark early if the words matter: If the words are intended to be the core brand, assess whether they can be protected before investing heavily in them.
2. Do not assume a logo registration protects the words alone: A composite logo registration protects the mark as registered. It may not give meaningful protection against use of the words in plain form.
3. Descriptive names are harder to monopolise: Names that tell consumers what the product or service is may be commercially attractive, but they are often weak from a trade mark perspective.
4. Use evidence must match the mark applied for: If the application is for a word mark, the evidence should show use of the words as a trade mark, not just use of a logo, business name, domain name or descriptive phrase.
5. A disclaimer will not rescue a non-distinctive mark: Section 74 of the Act cannot be used to sidestep the threshold requirement in s 41.
6. Think carefully before enforcing a logo registration against word use: A logo registration may assist against similar branding or get-up, but it may be much less useful against descriptive use of similar words.

Why it matters

Descriptive branding is tempting. It is clear, searchable and easy for consumers to understand.

But the more directly a brand describes the goods or services, the harder it will be to claim exclusive rights in it.

That is not a technicality. It is a policy choice built into trade mark law. Other traders should remain free to use ordinary language to describe their own goods and services.

Mobile Skips is not just a case about skip bins. It is a case about the boundary between branding and language.

The lesson is simple: You may own the logo and you may have used it for years. You may even be known by the words inside it.

But if the words alone describe the goods or services, they may not survive scrutiny under s 41 of the Act.

A logo registration may protect the badge as a whole. It does not necessarily give you the words.

Read the full decision here: Mobile Skips (Australia) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 744 (16 June 2026)

The post Owning the logo is not owning the words: key lessons from Mobile Skips appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

Patent term extensions (PTEs) in Australia sit at the centre of a long-running tension between innovation policy and statutory interpretation. Introduced to compensate pharmaceutical patentees for regulatory delay, the regime has increasingly been asked to do more than it was originally designed to achieve, particularly in relation to formulation and delivery system patents.

The post Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions in Australia appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

Australia and the European Union concluded negotiations on a historic free trade agreement on 24 March 2026, following eight years of extensive negotiations. One of the key obstacles to the signing of the Australian and European Union Free Trade Agreement (AEUFTA) was the European Union’s insistence that Australia provide geographical indication (GI) protection to the names of agricultural products and spirits that have been recognised domestically.

The EU has the most comprehensive internal framework for the protection of GIs and strongly advocates for the protection of EU GIs globally, primarily through bilateral free trade agreements. The EU recently extended the GI protection that already existed for agricultural products, wine and spirits to other categories of goods whose quality and reputation depend on geographical origin, such as craft and industrial goods,[4] and increased the level of protection afforded to agricultural and food GIs, including increasing the scope of GI protection where GIs are used as an ingredient in a processed product[5].  This illustrates its recognition of the value of GIs to preserve cultural traditions that are closely tied to geographical origin, enhance the economic benefits to local communities and increase the value of authentic EU regional products in global markets.[6]

GI Protection for Products other Than Wine and Grape Products

Giving Effect to Obligations Under AEUFTA

The post Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement and what this means for GI protection in Australia appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

Bad faith is having a moment in trade mark law.

I have found myself thinking about that lately because, in several recent opposition matters I have been involved in, bad faith has felt more prominent than it once did.

For years, section 62A of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (The Act) could feel a little like a tick-box ground, something often included in the pleadings but not always where the real fight would be. That no longer feels quite right.

In the right case, bad faith can be one of the most revealing grounds available.

Because sometimes a trade mark dispute is not really about whether two marks are too close, whether reputation spills across, or whether the applicant is the true owner.

Sometimes the sharper question is this:

What exactly was this applicant trying to do?

That is what drew me to this topic. Bad faith is one of the few areas of trade mark law that allows the decision-maker to look past the neat wording of an application and examine the filing story properly, who knew what, when they knew it, and why the application was filed in the first place.

And once you start thinking about it that way, the comparative picture becomes fascinating.

Australia expressly recognises bad faith through a specific section of the Act. The European Union has built an increasingly sophisticated doctrine around it. The United States reaches many of the same concerns through different legal routes, particularly bona fide intent to use and fraud.

Different systems, same instinct: the register is there to protect genuine brand rights, not reward opportunism.

1) Australia, where the law says it plainly

In Australia, bad faith has an express statutory footing in the Act.

The two leading authorities remain Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 81 and DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 478.

In Fry Consulting, the Court made clear that the question is whether the conduct falls short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced people in the field. That matters because it shows bad faith is not confined to obvious dishonesty or fraud.

At the same time, it remains a serious allegation. Mere carelessness, overreach, or poor judgment will not be enough.

In DC Comics, the Court reinforced that all the surrounding circumstances are relevant, and that conduct designed to gain an unfair advantage can amount to bad faith.

That is what makes section 62A of the Act so useful. It creates room to ask the real questions.

Was there a prior relationship? Did the applicant know of the other party’s mark? Was the application filed to block, pressure, leverage, copy, or secure a commercial head start?

A recent example is Glittery Garden [2026] ATMO 8, where bad faith was established after the delegate considered the applicant’s broader filing pattern and the absence of any credible explanation for adopting the mark.

Useful, not because it changes the law, but because it shows ‘bad faith’ being used in a practical, modern way.

For a long time, bad faith could feel like the ground people included just in case, a simple tick box exercise. In the right matter, it now feels far more substantive than that.

2) The EU, same idea, more developed

In the EU, bad faith appears under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

The classic starting points are Lindt, Case C-529/07 and SkyKick, Case C-371/18.

What makes the EU position especially interesting is that it has moved well beyond straightforward copying cases.

In Lindt, the Court made clear that bad faith must be assessed by reference to all relevant circumstances existing at the filing date.

In SkyKick, the Court confirmed that filing without any intention to use may amount to bad faith in the right circumstances.

That is significant. It shows that EU bad faith is not just about taking someone else’s sign. It is also about misuse of the trade mark system itself.

That broader approach is why the recent EUIPN CP13 Common Practice on trade mark applications made in bad faith matters.

CP13 frames bad faith as covering both:

• misappropriation of third-party rights; and
• abuse of the trade mark system.

That is a major practical development. It makes clear that bad faith can extend to defensive filings, strategic re-filings, speculative filings and other conduct that looks less like genuine brand protection and more like gamesmanship.

3) The US, same concern, different tools

The US does not really have a broad standalone bad faith ground in the same way.

Instead, it tackles similar conduct through narrower doctrines, especially lack of bona fide intent to use and fraud.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1051, an applicant must have a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

In M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. v Swatch AG, the Federal Circuit made clear that simply reserving rights is not enough.

And in In re Bose Corp., the Court confirmed that fraud requires a knowingly false, material representation made with intent to deceive.

So while the US uses different language, it is dealing with many of the same concerns, filings unsupported by genuine intention, or applications advanced through dishonesty.

Different wording, same instinct

That is what makes the comparison interesting.

• Australia asks whether the filing falls short of acceptable commercial behaviour.
• The EU asks whether there was dishonest intention or abuse of the system.
• The US asks whether there was genuine intent and honest dealing with the Office.

Different wording, same instinct.

Trade mark registers are meant to protect brands, not reward opportunism.

Why this topic matters

Bad faith seems to be shifting from a peripheral ground to a more meaningful one, particularly in Australian practice.

That matters.

As filing strategies become more sophisticated, global and commercially aggressive, the legal tools used to challenge them need to keep pace. Bad faith is one of those tools.

It is the doctrine that becomes most useful when an application looks tidy on paper, but the surrounding conduct tells a much uglier story.

And perhaps that is why it is getting more attention now. Because sometimes the real problem is not that a mark is too close to another.

Sometimes the real problem is that the filing itself was never clean to begin with.

And I, for one, am excited to see those ‘dirty’ trade marks off the register for good. One opposition at a time.

The post Bad faith, bad looks and bad filings, trade marks in Australia, the EU and the US appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

When looking to register your new beverage trade mark in Australia, there are some key considerations to keep in mind.

Be thorough with preliminary searches. Look beyond the obvious class.  

 The distinction between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in Australia is blurring. The commercial reality is that many producers now operate across both categories and offer non-alcoholic products alongside alcoholic options.

The result?

Trade mark risk no longer sits neatly within one classification. Although spirits and wine fall within Class 33 and most non-alcoholic beverages (plus beer) fall within Class 32 in Australia, Examiners increasingly treat these goods as commercially related. From a consumer perspective, alcohol-free spirits, zero-alcohol beers and traditional alcoholic beverages are often marketed under the same branding architecture, sold in the same retail channels and are targeted at the same demographic. This means that a mark registered in Class 32 may present an obstacle to registration of a mark in Class 33, and vice versa.

For example:

• A gin brand could block a non-alcoholic botanical spirit with a similar name.
• A sparkling water brand might face opposition from an established vodka producer.
• A brewery expanding into alcohol-free beer may encounter issues if it failed to secure coverage early.
• A wine producer launching a low-alcohol or canned wine range could face objections from a non-alcoholic or no-alcohol beverage brand with earlier rights in another class.

What this means for brand owners

• When looking for your next brand name, don’t limit clearance searches to the class that strictly describes the relevant product. Consider related beverage categories and brand extensions. Also look at bar and hospitality services which fall under Class 43.
• File strategically. When filing your application for one type of product, give some thought to your future plans. If for example expansion into alcohol-free variants is realistic, consider whether to cover goods in both Classes 32 and 33 This could potentially avoid problems in the future. Early intervention is typically more cost-effective than rebranding or defending infringement proceedings later.
• Monitor competitors. Consider implementing a trade mark-watching service to try to identify potentially-conflicting applications early so that you can consider whether you want to formally object.

Final thoughts

In an increasingly converged beverage market, trade mark strategy must be forward-looking rather than reactive. Taking a broader, multi-class and monitoring-focused approach at the outset can provide valuable flexibility as your brand evolves and significantly reduces the risk of costly disputes down the track. The specialist Trade Marks Team at Madderns can help protect your brands at every stage.

The post Trade Mark Protection for Alcoholic, Low Alcohol and Non-Alcoholic Beverages: Some key considerations appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

Australia has several premium apple‑growing regions, including the Adelaide Hills, Tasmania’s Huon Valley and key Victorian districts such as Harcourt and the Goulburn Valley. But the way apples are commercialised is changing. More fruit is now sold through “managed” or branded variety programs, where the variety itself, the brand and the quality system are tightly linked. That shift is powered by Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR): the legal framework that lets breeders and program owners control who can grow a variety and how it enters the market.

Snapshot: three practical shifts businesses are dealing with

First, access matters as much as agronomy. For many premium apples, you can’t simply buy trees. Instead, you need an active licence, an authorised nursery pathway, and program rules that cover how fruit is packed, branded and sold.

Second, compliance now runs through the whole supply chain. PBR is mainly about controlling propagating material (trees, budwood and other material used to make more trees), but in certain circumstances the law can also reach harvested fruit, and even products made from that fruit. That means packhouses and marketers, not just growers, have a role in getting it right.^[1]

Third, enforcement and validity challenges are not hypothetical. Recent overseas decisions show that courts will award meaningful remedies for illegal propagation, and trial and sale records from long ago can still determine whether a right is valid today.^[2][3]

PBR in plain English

A Plant Breeder’s Right is an intellectual property right over a new plant variety. In Australia, a granted PBR gives the owner the exclusive commercial right to do (or authorise others to do) a defined set of acts with propagating material, such as producing/reproducing it, conditioning it for propagation, selling it, importing/exporting it, and stocking it for those purposes.^[1]

If you’re ever unsure whether a particular apple variety is protected in Australia, a practical first step is to search IP Australia’s public PBR database (PBR Search), available at https://ipsearch.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr/.

For trees and vines, PBR protection lasts up to 25 years. That long timeframe matches the reality that orchard investments are multi‑decade decisions.^[1][4]

Can PBR reach the fruit? Sometimes. If propagating material was produced or reproduced without the owner’s authorisation, and the owner did not have a reasonable opportunity to exercise their rights in relation to that propagating material, the law can treat harvested material (e.g. apples) as if it were propagating material. If products are then made from that harvested material, the law can extend again to those products in defined circumstances.^[1]

What about “sports” and look-alikes? Apples are famous for colour mutations (“sports”). Australia’s PBR system deals with near-copies through the concept of an essentially derived variety (EDV). Legally, a variety is essentially derived from an initial variety if it is predominantly derived from it, retains the essential characteristics resulting from the initial variety’s genotype, and does not exhibit any important (as distinct from cosmetic) differences.^[1][5]

What this looks like on the ground

The easiest way to see “PBR in action” is to look at a tightly-managed variety program. For example, Lenswood (Lenswood Cold Stores Co‑operative Society) is Australia’s sole official licensee for ROCKIT apples and coordinates growers across Australia.^[6] Programs like this typically combine: (1) PBR over the variety, (2) trade marks and brand rules, and (3) quality and traceability requirements so fruit is consistent and marketable.

For growers and packhouses, the key operational takeaway is simple: treat variety compliance like food safety compliance. If your budwood pathway, planting records or carton traceability are weak, you can end up with fruit you can’t lawfully market or fruit that triggers a dispute when it enters a branded program.

Two international cases worth noting

China (Scilate / ENVY): In March 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court upheld a decision involving the Scilate apple variety (marketed as ENVY). The original 2023 ruling (upheld on appeal) found infringement through unlawful cultivation and sale of Scilate plant material and apples harvested from the illegally-planted material, awarded RMB 3.3 million (AUD $680,000) in damages, and required the infringer to remove the illegal plant material.^[2]

European Union (Cripps Pink / Cripps Red): In September 2025, the EU General Court dismissed an action by the rights holder (WAAA) and the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) that sought to overturn a Board of Appeal decision. That Board decision had remitted the matter to the CPVO and ordered it to open nullity proceedings because new evidence raised “serious doubts” about novelty. The practical lesson is that “old facts” about trials, disposals and early sales can remain legally decisive years later, so record‑keeping is part of IP risk management.^[3]

What shoppers will notice in 2026 (and why businesses should care)

Consumers are seeing more apples sold as brands rather than as generic varieties. In Australia, examples commonly mentioned in consumer‑facing material include Jazz, Bravo®, Kalei®, Eve, Modì, Envy, Rockit, Kanzi® and Yello.^[7]

It’s also worth watching how branded supply windows are communicated to the public. For instance, the Cosmic Crisp® program’s Australian FAQ states that the apples sold out for 2025 and are expected back in stores from July 2026 as volumes increase.^[9] Those kinds of public statements influence retailer planning, promotional timing, and when consumers will actively look for particular brands.

A 2026 readiness checklist for orchards and packhouses

Below is a short, practical checklist that assists in making managed‑variety programs run smoothly. It’s business guidance, not legal advice— we recommend that you obtain tailored advice for specific contracts or disputes.

To discuss plant breeder’s rights, trade marks and branding, patents or registered designs for your horticultural business, contact Madderns. We can help with IP strategy, filing and prosecution, and brand and variety protection planning for managed programs. If you need contract drafting/negotiation or a dispute handled, we can refer you to a trusted solicitor with the right experience.

References

1. Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth)

s 11 General nature of PBRs;

s 12 Extension of PBR to cover essentially derived varieties;

s 14 Extension to harvested material;

s 22 Duration of PBR.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04783/2024-10-14/2024-10-14/text/original/pdf

2. FreshFruitPortal, “China court upholds T&G’s apple rights” (12 March 2025). https://www.freshfruitportal.com/news/2025/03/12/china-court-upholds-tgs-apple-rights/
3. EUR‑Lex, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2025, Case T‑159/24 (WAAA v CPVO – Teak Enterprises), CELEX: 62024TJ0159. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0159
4. IP Australia, “What are plant breeder’s rights?”. https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/plant-breeders-rights/what-are-plant-breeders-rights
5. IPA Manuals (IP Australia), PBR Manual of Practice and Procedure: “7. Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs)” (Date Published 2 April 2025). https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr/7.-essentially-derived-varieties-edvs
6. Lenswood Apples (Lenswood Cold Stores Co‑operative Society), “Rockit”. https://lenswoodcoop.com.au/nfga/rockit/
7. Apple and Pear Australia Limited (APAL), “Varieties” (consumer list of newer branded apples). https://apal.org.au/consumer/varieties/
8. Montague Farms, “KISSABEL® Apples”. https://montaguefarms.com.au/kissabel-apples/
9. Cosmic Crisp® Australia, “FAQ” (availability statement for July 2026). https://www.cosmiccrisp.com.au/faq/

The post Plant breeder’s rights and managed apples: what’s changing in Australia appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

The checklist below summarises the key requirements and practical considerations to keep in mind.

Applicant Details

• The full legal name and address of the applicant must be provided.
• The applicant may be an individual(s), a company, an incorporated association or other legal entity.
• For corporate entities, the exact legal name of the company must be provided including the appropriate company type abbreviation (eg. LLC, Ltd, AG etc.)
• For individuals, a given name and a family name will be sufficient but not only an initial and a family name.  For joint owners, the full names of each owner must be provided.

Address for Service

• An address for service in Australia (or New Zealand) must be provided.

Power of Attorney?

• A power of attorney is not required.

Trade Mark Details

• A graphical representation of the mark is required.
• For a standard word mark, the trade mark can be typed in standard letters, preferably all capitals (eg. MADDERNS).
• If the trade mark is in stylised form, or consists of a logo, an image of the mark must be provided.  There is no requirement to include a written description of a stylised or logo mark, nor is it necessary to include a colour claim to restrict/limit the mark to a certain colour(s).
• For non-traditional trade marks (such as shape and colour marks), a clear concise written description of the mark must be provided along with an image(s) which clearly shows the features of the mark.

Translation/Transliteration:

• If a trade mark includes characters that are not Roman letters (eg. Chinese or Japanese characters), a transliteration of the characters into Roman letters must be provided along with a translation of the word(s) into English.  Certified documentation of the translation is generally not required.
• If the trade mark includes foreign words in Roman letters (such as French or German), a translation into English does not need to be submitted at the time of filing but this may be requested during examination.

Specification of goods/services

• Broad general claims such as “computer software”, “clothing” and “business advisory services” are allowed in Australia; however, wording such as “all goods in class 25” and “all services in class 42” are prohibited.
• Unqualified claims for “parts and fittings” or “accessories” are unlikely to be accepted.  Such claims should identify the specific goods of interest, for example, “parts and fittings for motor vehicles”.
• Claims for class headings are acceptable, but a class heading claim will not be interpreted to cover all of the items in the class.
• Unrealistically broad specifications incorporating many diverse items may be questioned.
• A list of the Australian Trade Marks Office’s approved terms can be reviewed here: https://tmgns.search.ipaustralia.gov.au/

Convention filings

• A convention claim must be made at the time of filing the Australian application or within two working days of filing the application.
• The following details are required to make the claim: the application number and filing date of the earlier application and the name of the Convention country.
• Generally, no supporting convention documentation is required; however, an Examiner may request a copy of the convention application during examination.

Basis for filing?

• There is no requirement to state whether the Applicant has, or has not, commenced use of the mark and no evidence of use or declaration of intention to use is required to be submitted at the time of filing.

Understanding these requirements will assist foreign brand owners to efficiently manage their trade mark filings in Australia and avoid unnecessary complications

The post Filing Requirements for Australian Trade Marks: A Guide for Foreign Applicants appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.

To be considered, you must have:

• Bachelor’s degree in Finance, Accounting, or related field.
• Professional accounting qualification (CA or CPA).
• At least 8 years of senior finance management experience in a corporate environment in Australia (preferably with a professional services firm, within the legal or IP industry).

For more details and to apply, go to:

https://www.seek.com.au/job/90216181

The post Financial Manager Role – we are hiring! appeared first on Madderns | Our Team is Your Team.