Elise Explains IPcast

elisesteegstra

Elise Explains IP provides simple, expert guidance on trade marks, design registrations, copyright, brand strategy, and intellectual property law in Australia. Whether you're building a business or creating new content, Elise helps you understand your rights, avoid risks, and protect the value of your work.

  1. 3d ago

    Your CD Collection Knows Things Spotify Has Forgotten - Ep 44

    Your CD Collection Knows Things Spotify Has Forgotten 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: why buying a CD or DVD doesn’t give you copyright, but does give you ownership of that particular physical copy; why Spotify, Apple Music, Netflix and other streaming catalogues can change as licences, territories and rights arrangements change; The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer and how a work can still exist while becoming practically invisible to contemporary audiences; how Dogma disappeared from legitimate digital distribution for years before changes to its rights position allowed it to return; the extraordinary history of missing Doctor Who episodes, including recordings recovered from overseas broadcasters, private collectors and fans; why physical media can operate as a form of distributed cultural preservation; and why “available online” should never be confused with “permanent”. 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. Sources and further reading SBS On Demand – why content disappears SBS explains that programs may cease to be available because their availability period has expired or because SBS does not hold the necessary catch-up rights — a useful real-world example of how digital availability depends on licensing. Why can't I find a certain program on SBS On Demand? Dogma – current Australian availability After years of famously difficult legitimate availability, Dogma is currently available to stream in Australia through SBS On Demand. Watch Dogma on SBS On Demand Doctor Who – why the early episodes went missing The official Doctor Who site explains the BBC’s historical practice of wiping videotapes after broadcast and overseas sales copies had been made. Of the first 253 episodes, none of the original videotapes survived. Why are some Doctor Who episodes missing? Doctor Who – the missing episodes and their recovery This updated 2026 overview covers the surviving and missing episodes, overseas copies, private collectors and the continuing effort to recover lost material. Everything you need to know about Doctor Who's missing episodes The Daleks’ Master Plan – two episodes recovered in 2026 In 2026, The Nightmare Begins and Devil’s Planet were recovered from the collection of a deceased private film collector. Four other Doctor Who episodes in the collection were already held by the BBC, but these two had been considered lost. How missing episodes from The Daleks' Master Plan were found   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.

  2. Oct 2

    Know when to enforce - Louis Vuitton v Molly Tea - Ep 43

    Know when to enforce Can Louis Vuitton Stop a Bubble Tea Brand Using a Flower? 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.

  3. Sep 23

    Naming Your Brand vs. You as the Brand - Ep 42

    Why Naming Your Brand After Yourself Is a Stupid Idea - Ep 42 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: Why personal names can be harder to register as trade marks (common surnames in particular can run into "not inherently adaptable to distinguish" objections from IP Australia) Why a business inseparable from your name is harder to sell — buyers want to know what they're actually buying if the brand is you What happens to a personal-name brand when you retire, get sick, or want to hand the business to a partner or your kids Why personal-name brands sit awkwardly once a business grows beyond a solo operator A practical scenario: a freelance graphic designer who named her business after herself, built real value over five years, then hit unexpected questions from a buyer about the brand — including that she could be prevented from ever using her own name in a future business again What to do differently if you're naming a business now, and what to do if you've already gone down this path and it's working for you 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.

  4. Sep 9

    Is “Inspired By” Packaging Copyright Infringement? Aldi v Hampden Explained - Ep 41

    Is “Inspired By” Packaging Copyright Infringement? Aldi v Hampden Explained - Ep 41 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. Key takeaways Benchmarking a competitor isn't automatically illegal — being inspired by what's working in your market is normal. How you document that process matters enormously. Instructions like “match this, but not too closely” can become the strongest evidence against you. Copyright protects a specific work, not a general “look and feel” — for both claimants and defendants. Originality evidence is central to infringement, not just to proving copyright exists in the first place. Keep records of your own design process — including your inspiration board — so you can show how you diverged, not just that you were inspired. Resources mentioned Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 103: https://jade.io/article/src/1245709/3192390/0 Episode 7 — “Aldi and Dupes — When Inspiration Becomes Infringement” — www.elisesteegstra.com/007 Free IP Risk & Ownership Audit — www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit Book a Strategy Call — https://calendly.com/elisesteegstra/30min   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.

  5. Sep 2

    Registered Designs (and Trade Dress) — The IP Right Most Product Businesses Are Missing - Ep 40

    Registered Designs (and Trade Dress) — The IP Right Most Product Businesses Are Missing - Ep 40 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: What a registered design actually protects: the visual appearance of a product — shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation — not how it works (that's patents) and not your brand (that's trade marks) The overlap with copyright, and the quirk where copyright can be lost once a design is industrially applied Why design protection is one of the few areas of IP where being early isn't just better — it's often the only option, because a design generally needs to be new and distinctive at the time you file A common real-world pattern: a founder develops a genuinely distinctive product, launches without filing, and later finds a near-identical version on a competitor's site — with the registration window already closed Why the scope of what's protectable is broader than people assume (packaging, tech, homewares, medical devices — even part of a product) The extra step of examination and certification, and why registering a design alone doesn't automatically give you enforcement rights Trade dress: what it means, why Australia doesn't have a direct equivalent, and how registered designs, trade marks, and the Australian Consumer Law can combine to protect a product's look Key takeaway: 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. Mentioned in this episode: The craft peanut butter jar case — Elise Explains IP, episode 004 (www.elisesteegstra.com/004) Shape and colour marks — Elise Explains IP, episode 013 (www.elisesteegstra.com/013) Van Leeuwen Ice Cream LLC v. Rebel Creamery LLC — a US trade dress case in which a federal court found Rebel Creamery had intentionally copied Van Leeuwen's ice cream packaging (matching pastel cardboard pints, monochrome lids, and black script lettering), ordering Rebel to pay roughly US$23.8 million and redesign its packaging. Rebel has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection while it appeals. A useful real-world illustration of how far "look and feel" protection can reach — even without any claim over a name or logo. Next step 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.

  6. Aug 26

    Can India Own “Basmati” in Australia? Why Pisco Won but Basmati Lost - Ep 39

    Can India Own “Basmati” in Australia? Why Pisco Won but Basmati Lost 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. In this episode Elise discusses: What a certification trade mark is and how it differs from an ordinary trade mark Why APEDA wanted to register the word BASMATI The significance of Basmati rice being grown in both India and Pakistan What Australian consumers understand “Basmati” to mean Why substantial sales and an association with India were not enough The difference between consumer association and a word functioning as a certification mark Why APEDA’s proposed packaging rules and conditions did not solve the problem How the Basmati decision compares with Peru’s successful PISCO application Why PISCO indicated geographic origin while BASMATI indicated a product type What businesses and industry bodies should consider before trying to protect a regional or traditional product name The key distinction 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. Practical takeaway 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: What does the name mean to Australian consumers? Does it identify geographic origin, a product category or a certification system? Are other traders already using the name legitimately? Does the mark distinguish certified products from products that have not been certified? Would a distinctive logo or composite certification mark offer more realistic protection? Authenticity matters—but authenticity and registrability are not the same thing. Cases discussed 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 Need help protecting a valuable name? 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.

  7. Aug 19

    Who’s Using Your Trade Mark? How to Monitor and Protect Your Brand - Ep 38

    Who’s Using Your Trade Mark? How to Monitor and Protect Your Brand - Ep 38 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. In this episode 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 The IP Australia opposition process 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 practical monitoring plan 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. Case discussed 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 Useful resources 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 Check your own IP risks 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.

  8. Aug 12

    Brown Nose Day v Red Nose Day: A Trade Mark Battle Won by a Nose - Ep 37

    Brown Nose Day v Red Nose Day: A Trade Mark Battle Won by a Nose - Ep 37 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. In this episode Elise explains: How BROWN NOSE DAY came to be registered for charitable fundraising services Why IP Australia later attempted to revoke the registration How courts decide whether two trade marks are deceptively similar Why trade marks must be considered as a whole How meaning, appearance, sound and imperfect recollection affect the comparison Why the expression “brown nose” helped distinguish the later mark When section 84A of the Trade Marks Act 1995 allows the Registrar to undo a registration Why acceptance or registration does not guarantee that a trade mark will never be challenged The value of conducting proper clearance searches before committing to a brand Why registered trade mark owners should monitor new applications The case 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. Practical takeaways 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: Search for similar marks, not only exact matches Consider similarities in sound, meaning, appearance and structure Think about whether consumers might assume the brands are connected Avoid making a substantial investment in a name before understanding the risks Monitor new trade mark applications after securing registration Keep records of important branding, ownership and licensing decisions 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. Need help protecting a new brand? 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.

See All (44)

About

Elise Explains IP provides simple, expert guidance on trade marks, design registrations, copyright, brand strategy, and intellectual property law in Australia. Whether you're building a business or creating new content, Elise helps you understand your rights, avoid risks, and protect the value of your work.

Information

  • Creator
    elisesteegstra
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    44
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright 2025 All rights reserved.
  • Show Website
    Elise Explains IPcast