IP Australia proposes some welcome trade mark reforms

On 3 March 2026, IP Australia released a consultation paper inviting feedback on its proposals to streamline and simplify various intellectual property (IP) regulations. The consultation comes off the back of a request by the Government last year to improve Australia’s IP rights system to encourage economic growth and remove unnecessary compliance burdens for businesses. The paper covers all areas of IP, but this article focuses on some of the major changes proposed for trade marks.

A new response system for examination reports
Currently, IP Australia sets a deadline of 15 months once an examination report has been issued. This is the deadline to overcome all objections and have the application in order for acceptance rather than the deadline to respond. It is possible to file multiple responses to reports or no response at all during this period. IP Australia says this is resulting in a large number of applications sitting unresolved with 29,000 pending applications awaiting a first reply and 14% of applications lapsing with no response filed.

The proposal is to set a shorter timeframe to respond to each examination report (eg two months) and with a limit on the number of responses which can be filed (eg three responses).

The 15-month deadline is a long timeframe, with other countries generally setting deadlines between three months (United States) and 12 months (New Zealand). A shorter timeframe would be welcome if it means that it is the deadline to respond rather than the deadline to have the application in order for acceptance. This is an unusual quirk of IP Australia and causes much confusion. Extensions of time are often sought due to a misunderstanding of what the deadline means, which further delays the application process. While the deadline should be shorter, it should still be long enough to deal with complex objections such as registrability and citation objections. Overcoming these types of objections can take time especially if evidence of use or consent is being explored and the time set by IP Australia should allow for this.

Correcting ownership details
If an error has been made about the owner when filing an application, there is currently no clear legal mechanism to correct this. While some obvious mistakes can be fixed (eg a misspelled company name), others are not so easy (eg listing the wrong entity or filing in a personal name instead of a related company name).

IP Australia proposes to amend the legislation to allow for corrections to ownership before and after registration in set circumstances such as where the entities are related. Safeguards, including advertising the change and allowing affected parties to be heard, will be put in place. The Registrar would also be given discretion to refuse to cancel a mark where there has been a genuine mistake.

This proposal is particularly good news for self-filers and smaller companies who may be unaware of the legal requirements of ownership when filing an application or the difficulties in making a change when getting it wrong. The risk of rights being lost through opposition or cancellation due to ownership errors, should also be minimised.

Finalising oppositions that are not progressing
There are two proposed changes to trade mark oppositions. The first is to give the Registrar the power to dismiss or finalise an opposition where the parties are no longer participating in the proceedings.

If an opposition gets to the stage where a final decision is required, action is required by both parties in terms of requesting whether there is a hearing or a decision on the written record. In both cases, a fee must be paid. If no request is filed or no fee paid, then an opposition can remain unresolved indefinitely.

The key here is that both parties must be disengaged from the process before the Registrar can act. This move will be beneficial to other trade mark owners awaiting the outcome of an opposition. For example, a non-use revocation action is classified as an opposition in Australia. Where there is a contested non-use action, but the parties then resolve the matter before requesting a hearing but do not notify IP Australia, then the Registrar can dismiss or finalise the opposition. This will give certainty to a third party who has filed an application but has received a citation objection in the form of the registration the subject of the non-use action.

Awarding costs above the regulated fees in oppositions
A successful party to an opposition can be awarded costs. But, these costs are awarded in accordance with a regulated scale of fees and in most cases do not cover the actual costs incurred. IP Australia is proposing that the Registrar can exercise his/her discretion to make an award of costs above scale fees in exceptional circumstances.

The consultation paper does not specify what those exceptional circumstances may be but does indicate that poor behaviour by one party in an opposition can significantly delay proceedings. With oppositions becoming more utilised in Australia, it has opened the door to a range of behaviours including obstructive tactics. The decision to try and clamp down on this behaviour will be seen as a positive step by many, but time will tell how difficult it will be to convince the Registrar that the discretion should be exercised.

Written submissions can be uploaded to IP Australia’s Consultation Hub before the consultation period closes on 2 April 2026.