Australian Tribunals (26 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Four tribunals and seventeen decisions in the Tribunals edition of Monday 26 October 2026, five with headnotes, four of them from the Trade Marks Office. Why a mature child's settled wish to change his name needn't wait for proof of harm; what counts as use when a registered trade mark faces removal; why oppositions without evidence fail; and three worked examples on review and valuation. Tribunals Desk: a settled wish and a new surname (lead; reported as legal doctrine only). CPC v JQE [2026] SACAT 102 - internal review under s 70 SACAT Act reaches the correct or preferable decision without finding error; a child under 18 may consent to a change of name under s 26 BDM Registration Act 1996 (SA) unless unable to understand its meaning and implications, and age alone does not settle capacity; a mature child's uninfluenced and enduring wishes are likely often to outweigh the Tribunal's own view of possible harm (CBS v UIE and GTB v MNK modified insofar as read to require proof of harm). Decision set aside; surname change granted, middle names not. JADE Tribunals Desk: use it or lose it on the register (Trade Marks Office, non-use removal). Wynstan Designs Pty Ltd v Dotdigital Group plc [2026] ATMO 200 - use for one kind of software does not rebut non-use for other kinds within a broad description; a solicitor's bare statement of intention carries limited weight; the owner bears the s 101 onus. Class 9 limited to software for controlling blinds, shutters and awnings; no order as to costs. JADE Oppositions by HLA Brand Management Co Ltd to applications under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 209 - preparatory steps can be use without a sale only if the owner has committed itself and the mark is used to promote trade; authorisation certificates are not use; plans set in motion during the period weigh in the s 101(3) discretion; retention fairly reflects the trade done and cannot add retail services. Logo mark removed; the other retained in part. JADE Tribunals Desk: oppositions without the evidence . Burk Pty Ltd v Solo Oil Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 192 - an inconsistent colour-mark endorsement is read with the representation through the interested reader's eyes; s 60 reputation needs sales or advertising evidence; a s 42(b) ground naming only the Competition and Consumer Act fails; bad faith (s 62A) needs evidence. Opposition rejected, costs against the opponent. JADE Opposition by Markwise Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2026] ATMO 208 - similar services is a practical, multifactorial question; honest concurrent use under s 44(3)(a) is the holder's onus and was made out; s 42(b) needs proof that use would, not could, be contrary to law. Opposition rejected, costs against the opponent. JADE Tribunals Desk: revocation, consent and valuation (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Jetsunma Pty Ltd v Housing Safety Authority [2026] SACAT 98 - synopsis: jurisdiction attaches on filing a valid review application and survives later revocation; merits review only (ss 34, 37 SACAT Act). JADE Bayport Industries Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2026] VCAT 330 - synopsis: proving fifteen years' continuous use for existing use rights (cll 63.01, 63.11); no declarations by consent under s 149A(1) P&E Act. JADE 1st Impressions Early Learning Centre (ACN: 614 081 337) v Valuer-General [202