Trade Mark Dispute Resolution & Enforcement — Sydney & Melbourne

We assess the strength of the claim of infringement, take immediate enforcement action, and leverage outcomes into settlements that deter future threats where possible.

Trade mark infringement occurs when a competitor uses a substantially identical or deceptively similar mark, potentially causing consumer confusion and damaging your brand's reputation. At Baxter IP, we start with a thorough infringement analysis, reviewing registration details, priority dates, and evidence of use to build your case. If the claim is strong, we draft and send targeted cease and desist letters to halt the infringement swiftly—avoiding unjustifiable threats that could lead to counterclaims.

For example, in a recent case for Nick Scali Furniture, we issued a cease and desist letter against an imitator, resulting in the infringer ceasing activities without escalation. We often leverage these actions into negotiated settlements, such as licensing agreements or coexistence terms, that not only resolve the issue but also strengthen your market position. If needed, we support your legal team in Federal Court proceedings, as we did in the successful appeal for Jaimon Thomas (Thomas v Monsoon Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 911), where our work helped overturn a non-use removal to preserve full registration.

We evaluate the claim, mount the strongest possible defence, and explore coexistence options that minimise cost and disruption.

Receiving an infringement notice can be daunting, but not all claims are as strong as they first appear. Baxter IP begins by dissecting the notice: verifying the accuser's trade mark validity, assessing similarity under sections 120 and 44 of the Trade Marks Act, and gathering evidence of your honest concurrent use or prior rights. We craft a robust defence, potentially rebutting with arguments on distinctiveness and non-deceptive similarity.

Where full defence isn't ideal, we negotiate coexistence agreements—allowing both marks to operate with defined boundaries—to avoid costly litigation. For instance, in handling allegations against Halibaba International Group Pty Ltd in 2024, we resolved the dispute through strategic negotiations, minimising business disruption. Our boutique flexibility ensures we prioritize low-cost, high-impact solutions like mediation, drawing on our experience in over 700 active trade mark clients, including multinationals like BYD and startups like UAMTEC.

Our global associate networks can coordinate border seizures, local enforcement, and online takedowns to safeguard revenue.
Counterfeiting erodes brand value and revenue, especially in large markets like China, Europe, or the US. Baxter IP leverages our strong alliances with foreign firms to orchestrate multi-jurisdictional responses. Our associates coordinate customs notifications for border seizures, initiate local enforcement actions, and we can pursue online takedowns on platforms like Amazon or Alibaba via IP infringement complaints very effectively.

We assess the relative rights of each party in the mark and prepare detailed evidence of use to lodge trade mark opposition proceedings on a strong footing.
Opposing a competitor's trade mark application at IP Australia and foreign trade mark offices prevents confusingly similar marks from registering and diluting your brand. Baxter IP files oppositions under grounds like deceptive similarity (section 44) or bad faith, backed by comprehensive evidence such as market surveys, prior use declarations, and expert analyses.

Our track record shines here: In 2024-2025, we've won multiple oppositions for companies such as Mink Pink Fashion Group, Australian Traditional Medicine Society and Yanxu Lin, blocking competitors effectively. As industry experts in sectors like FMCG and retail, we ensure oppositions align with your competitive strategy.

Yes. We normally prioritise negotiation, mediation, and commercial settlements to achieve outcomes faster and at lower cost.
Court isn't always necessary—over 90% of our disputes resolve pre-litigation. Baxter IP emphasises negotiation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR): starting with negotiations via cease and desist responses or coexistence proposals, then escalating to mediation if needed. This approach saves time and costs while preserving business relationships.

We counter with evidence of distinctiveness and negotiate from strength, reinforcing your market position.
Accusations of brand confusion often stem from perceived similarities in marks or goods/services. Baxter IP counters by compiling evidence of your mark's distinctiveness—e.g., unique design elements, market differentiation, or consumer surveys—while challenging the other party's claims under Australian Consumer Law or passing off. We negotiate robustly, often securing coexistence or amendments that allow continued use.

In RWZH RECHTSANWÄLTE's case for Rudolf Hensel GmbH (fire safety), we overturned a refusal using case law arguments, reinforcing distinctiveness. For Jay Fink (S’WICH), we cleared blocking marks via non-use actions after consent attempts failed. Our strategy minimises disruption, turning defences into opportunities to strengthen your portfolio.